This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop page. |
|
My understanding of the purpose fulfilled by this procedure is more to provide guidance, and not summarily ban anyone proven to have a WP:COI. Instead this would be like an explanation to anyone found by the arbcom in need of correction. I want to make it a principle that nobody will be banned based on what has happened and what is cited in evidence, not even COFS. I get the feeling this case has increased tension among contentious editors which is counterproductive and unnecessary if my perception is correct.
As I understand it a WP:BAN would only be something explored if any of the participants (myself included of course) continue acting contrary whatever the ruling is, assuming the arbcom finds that a problem exists. If so, nobody needs to worry about judgment coming in and have been banned for a period of time or forever.
Is there a way to work this principle into a part of the workshop? Anynobody 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is assuming nobody makes any particularly egregious edits/comments. The thing about COI is that it's hard to get people to acknowledge one, if the arbcom finds (if being the key word) COI to be the problem this could be the first time they realize it. If so a ban seems to be a harsh solution. (Again, assuming everyone behaves.) Anynobody 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to test your patience; I'll give you the short SHORT version please correct me where I err:
If editors believe they could be banned for something they've already done, but received no warning from the arbcom about, it's going to make things that much more tense. Anynobody 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing worth noting here is that the original terms of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline would have prevented partisans of both sides from having a direct say on the WP:CSN outcome. They would have commented and provided evidence while uninvolved editors reached a consensus decision. In mid-March 2007 that clause got removed from the guideline by a consensus that was (IMHO) much smaller than the original discussion that had addressed it at length and adopted it. This COFS issue is the second case I've referred to arbitration in whole or in part because of that clause's deletion: I opened the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram request when Ideogram arguably canvassed for POV support for a community siteban. Durova Charge! 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This started as a response to Durova but it is better placed as a motion and so I will post it there. -- Justanother 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
By making this edit here [ [2]], does that mean you're making yourself a party to this arbitration? HubcapD 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
On the whole this seems to need a more focused set of findings of fact. The proposed ones are vague, contradictory and worded like policy items, not facts of the case. After those are cleared up one can talk about remedy's. -- Rocksanddirt 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me, dear reader, for following Anynobody so far off topic here, but I'm beginning to think I owe it to myself to clear up one small thing that he has brought up a number of times. Anynobody, I see you all over these pages, trying to make out that I was being biased when I deleted your ever-loving RfC against User:Justanother, because I had a... I don't know, friendship? Romantic interest? in Justanother. Your evidence is one much-posted diff where User:Bishzilla—not User:Bishonen— calls Justanother "a total sweetheart" [3]... sheesh! All due respect to Justanother, but I don't share Bishzilla's tastes or ... proclivities. [4] Let me tell you about Bishzilla, Anynobody. She's not me. She's an oversexed dinosaur with a heart of gold. [5] I'm not. I hope you don't, for instance, take me to have a hopeless passion for Muzzy, like Bishzilla? [6] [7] Or an interest in Mothra? [8] You surely don't hold me responsible for Bishzilla's edits? Have you ever tried to keep a ten-storeys-high prehistoric monster on a leash? Yes, Bishzilla is my sock (=acknowledged alternative account). Sure. So? She's very independent. She spends her life trying to get away from me, like Pinocchio from Geppetto, or Asimov's robot from his creator, Man—it's a favored literary theme. She claims I'm scared of her ! [9] (Not true. Down, Bishzilla ! ) She thwarts me at every turn, and, significantly in this context, has been known to protect little users from my administrative wrath. [10] Do you know, you are the very first person to crassly assume that she's me—the rest of the community doesn't seem to have any trouble telling us apart. So much so that some highly respected users admire Bishzilla, but are fairly cool towards Bishonen. [11] Her wikicareer is admittedly more impressive than mine, and she's much more loved. (Yes, creating her was a mistake. I feel like Frankenstein.) I count at least three arbitrators supporting her request for adminship—pretty good for a sock ! She has a couple of bureaucrats in her pocket, [12] [13] [] [14] something I can only dream of. She's quite likely to comment on an RfC or RFAr off her own bat, and always commands respect when she does, [15] [16] which is more than can be said for Bishonen. She has started to refer disparagingly to me as "little 'shonen" and takes every opportunity to call me a "wienie" or "weenie" admin, whatever that may mean. She has recently asserted her independence by pointedly creating a sock of her own ! [17] (Am I supposed to be responsible for his actions, too?) My point is that Bishzilla is, well, just not me. I'm an articulate, analytical sort of cuss, as unlikely to call Justanother a "sweetheart" as I am to post an RfC "Outside view" consisting of the word "roarr" [18] Bishzilla has a warm heart beneath a rugged exterior; I'm disagreeable clear through. Do try to have a little sense of context. Here are a couple of links that your research has apparently failed to turn up, even though your friend and collaborator Orsini carefully pointed them out to you: [19] [20] [21] [22] They show my real opinion of Justanother at the time in question. (It has improved since.) Bishonen | talk 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
Anynobody, you misunderstand me. As I explained in my reply to you on the workshop, the side issue is you versus me, and it's all your idea that that has any relevance to this arbitration. What I posted evidence about on July 20 was the subject you versus Justanother. Are you going to start addressing that anytime soon? Read ad hominem and think about it. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
-- Justanother 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)The problem is that not everyone gets the joke; perhaps because English is not their primary language, perhaps because they were not expecting a joke, perhaps because they don't have the same sort of sense of humor that you and I perhaps share, for better or worse. Perhaps they do get the joke but still don't like it, doesn't really matter which. But the big thing is that it probably is not advisable to put something on wikipedia that could be in any way offensive and expect others to turn your statement to just the right angle to get your joke. This is what I am learning today. Better that you fully explain how you want your statement to be taken but that kinda spoils the fun of a joke doesn't it? So perhaps the best thing is to just state what you want to state . .
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop page. |
|
My understanding of the purpose fulfilled by this procedure is more to provide guidance, and not summarily ban anyone proven to have a WP:COI. Instead this would be like an explanation to anyone found by the arbcom in need of correction. I want to make it a principle that nobody will be banned based on what has happened and what is cited in evidence, not even COFS. I get the feeling this case has increased tension among contentious editors which is counterproductive and unnecessary if my perception is correct.
As I understand it a WP:BAN would only be something explored if any of the participants (myself included of course) continue acting contrary whatever the ruling is, assuming the arbcom finds that a problem exists. If so, nobody needs to worry about judgment coming in and have been banned for a period of time or forever.
Is there a way to work this principle into a part of the workshop? Anynobody 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is assuming nobody makes any particularly egregious edits/comments. The thing about COI is that it's hard to get people to acknowledge one, if the arbcom finds (if being the key word) COI to be the problem this could be the first time they realize it. If so a ban seems to be a harsh solution. (Again, assuming everyone behaves.) Anynobody 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to test your patience; I'll give you the short SHORT version please correct me where I err:
If editors believe they could be banned for something they've already done, but received no warning from the arbcom about, it's going to make things that much more tense. Anynobody 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing worth noting here is that the original terms of the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline would have prevented partisans of both sides from having a direct say on the WP:CSN outcome. They would have commented and provided evidence while uninvolved editors reached a consensus decision. In mid-March 2007 that clause got removed from the guideline by a consensus that was (IMHO) much smaller than the original discussion that had addressed it at length and adopted it. This COFS issue is the second case I've referred to arbitration in whole or in part because of that clause's deletion: I opened the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram request when Ideogram arguably canvassed for POV support for a community siteban. Durova Charge! 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This started as a response to Durova but it is better placed as a motion and so I will post it there. -- Justanother 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
By making this edit here [ [2]], does that mean you're making yourself a party to this arbitration? HubcapD 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
On the whole this seems to need a more focused set of findings of fact. The proposed ones are vague, contradictory and worded like policy items, not facts of the case. After those are cleared up one can talk about remedy's. -- Rocksanddirt 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me, dear reader, for following Anynobody so far off topic here, but I'm beginning to think I owe it to myself to clear up one small thing that he has brought up a number of times. Anynobody, I see you all over these pages, trying to make out that I was being biased when I deleted your ever-loving RfC against User:Justanother, because I had a... I don't know, friendship? Romantic interest? in Justanother. Your evidence is one much-posted diff where User:Bishzilla—not User:Bishonen— calls Justanother "a total sweetheart" [3]... sheesh! All due respect to Justanother, but I don't share Bishzilla's tastes or ... proclivities. [4] Let me tell you about Bishzilla, Anynobody. She's not me. She's an oversexed dinosaur with a heart of gold. [5] I'm not. I hope you don't, for instance, take me to have a hopeless passion for Muzzy, like Bishzilla? [6] [7] Or an interest in Mothra? [8] You surely don't hold me responsible for Bishzilla's edits? Have you ever tried to keep a ten-storeys-high prehistoric monster on a leash? Yes, Bishzilla is my sock (=acknowledged alternative account). Sure. So? She's very independent. She spends her life trying to get away from me, like Pinocchio from Geppetto, or Asimov's robot from his creator, Man—it's a favored literary theme. She claims I'm scared of her ! [9] (Not true. Down, Bishzilla ! ) She thwarts me at every turn, and, significantly in this context, has been known to protect little users from my administrative wrath. [10] Do you know, you are the very first person to crassly assume that she's me—the rest of the community doesn't seem to have any trouble telling us apart. So much so that some highly respected users admire Bishzilla, but are fairly cool towards Bishonen. [11] Her wikicareer is admittedly more impressive than mine, and she's much more loved. (Yes, creating her was a mistake. I feel like Frankenstein.) I count at least three arbitrators supporting her request for adminship—pretty good for a sock ! She has a couple of bureaucrats in her pocket, [12] [13] [] [14] something I can only dream of. She's quite likely to comment on an RfC or RFAr off her own bat, and always commands respect when she does, [15] [16] which is more than can be said for Bishonen. She has started to refer disparagingly to me as "little 'shonen" and takes every opportunity to call me a "wienie" or "weenie" admin, whatever that may mean. She has recently asserted her independence by pointedly creating a sock of her own ! [17] (Am I supposed to be responsible for his actions, too?) My point is that Bishzilla is, well, just not me. I'm an articulate, analytical sort of cuss, as unlikely to call Justanother a "sweetheart" as I am to post an RfC "Outside view" consisting of the word "roarr" [18] Bishzilla has a warm heart beneath a rugged exterior; I'm disagreeable clear through. Do try to have a little sense of context. Here are a couple of links that your research has apparently failed to turn up, even though your friend and collaborator Orsini carefully pointed them out to you: [19] [20] [21] [22] They show my real opinion of Justanother at the time in question. (It has improved since.) Bishonen | talk 19:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
Anynobody, you misunderstand me. As I explained in my reply to you on the workshop, the side issue is you versus me, and it's all your idea that that has any relevance to this arbitration. What I posted evidence about on July 20 was the subject you versus Justanother. Are you going to start addressing that anytime soon? Read ad hominem and think about it. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
-- Justanother 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)The problem is that not everyone gets the joke; perhaps because English is not their primary language, perhaps because they were not expecting a joke, perhaps because they don't have the same sort of sense of humor that you and I perhaps share, for better or worse. Perhaps they do get the joke but still don't like it, doesn't really matter which. But the big thing is that it probably is not advisable to put something on wikipedia that could be in any way offensive and expect others to turn your statement to just the right angle to get your joke. This is what I am learning today. Better that you fully explain how you want your statement to be taken but that kinda spoils the fun of a joke doesn't it? So perhaps the best thing is to just state what you want to state . .