This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare ( Talk) & Euryalus ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Dear Committee, this is a comment to formally acknowledge that I have read the Proposed Decision. I also would like to again extend my prior commitment to dialogue, in case any further questions would like to be asked that I can help respond (and/or clarify). Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this near decade-long problem; so many fellow editors are no longer with us today who I am certain would also be just as grateful for the proposed solutions—it deeply saddens me to remember them while I reflect on my own time here in Wikipedia. I look forward to further collaborations! Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 08:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Antipatico, there was no other remedy than to block you for some time according to the "sabotage against the project" that constitutes your attitude in the matter of article titles. You were given multiple reasons, but did not understand them. Multiple long discussions were had, but you did not understand them. You went to the administrator's noticeboard, and there were explained and again did not understand them. Your opinion was against principle, according to the policies and the opinion of all else who participated. And you did not understand them. You were asked for reasons, but did not provide them. You were given 15 days, but did not use the time. The time being up, it was proceeded to be done as announced, but, evidently, you did not understand it. Revert after systematic revert to defend a series of arbitrary titles without any other reason than your closed negativity and refusal to step beyond argumentations. That is, I told you, you were advised, you were retold, and yet continued repeating your behavior and sabotage. As such, you are now being sanctioned, as all those who obstruct the project are sanctioned. We are neither here for fights nor stubbornness, we are constructing an encyclopedia on the basis of certain norms. I hope that the block for a week will help change your attitude. Greetings, Galio.
Regarding the 1RR: Getting either party to dialogue is not an issue. The evidence shows that this case has gone through various talk page, AN/I, and formal mediation discussions. A 1RR restriction wouldn't be a remedy, and could instead be misused as a leverage to avoid discussions. I would instead suggest placing a permanent semi-protection on the War of the Pacific article, as this would encourage account creation to engage in dialogue.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 22:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Even after the article Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) was renamed, the name "Secret Alliance Treaty..." continues to be used excessively by Keysanger whenever possible. This is borderline user behavior, but certainly relates to the content. How much emphasis on the secrecy of the document is too much emphasis before it becomes disruptively WP:POINTY?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It is noteworthy about the quality and intention of the discussion that the user who wrote
will be allowed to continue his edits about Bolivia. At the contrary, the user who denounced these aberrations to the Arbitration Committee will be impeded through a topic ban about Bolivia. Good night Wikipedia. --Keysanger 13:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Mildly, and at the risk of treading through issues already discussed in the case - these are really old diffs (all from 2009). The issue of rehashing really very old material like this was discussed during the evidence and workshop phases and is referenced in the PD. There's no "statute of limitations" on old edits, but to make a case for current disruption you need more current edits than these.
On the four points listed further above (noting this is all my personal view, and other Arbs might disagree):
Two closing comments:
Further comments welcome. -- Euryalus ( talk) 04:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom wrote [10] Keysanger (talk · contribs) is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, and not to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.
as response to:
[11] Keysanger had been diagnosed with BPD
The whole case is getting a dilettante buffoonery. --Keysanger 12:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the Transparency and confidentiality policy, the ArbCom members are bound to make public detailed rationales for decisions.
Based on this right, I ask the ArbCom to clear following decisions:
In order to compare the gravity of the deeds, I solicit the ArbCom to use this diff] ( Talk to me, if you need more English.) as reference for comparisons. This sentence has been used to justify a my tban from all articles about Bolivia.
Furthermore, I ask the Arbitration Committee to reflect the respective Evidence in the "Locus of the Dispute" and to find a remedies to avoid their repetition in the future. Without an extensive answer to these questions, any productive and acceptable results will stay away from the case. --Keysanger 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The reference to WP:3O in "Other content disputes" implies that a Third Opinion can contribute to consensus or be a tiebreaker. While I suppose that the Committee may have the discretion to require the parties to regard it in that manner, it should be noted that 3O's do not ordinarily contribute to or "count" towards consensus. See the current note at the top of the 3O page that says that 3O's are not binding and my History of the Third Opinion project not being a tiebreaker or binding. If that remedy is going to pass and the reference to 3O is going to be left in, some future drama might be avoided by saying that the parties are to regard 3O's as binding even though they do not ordinarily have that effect. (And if you do that, you might also want to take into consideration that doing so puts the content issue in question into the hands of a single editor very much like content arbitration might do. And what happens if one party says A, the second party says B, and the Third Party says C (which often happens)? Does C become a binding content decision on A & B?) The best direction here might be to eliminate the reference to 3O from that remedy. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering, how exactly do "warnings" work in Wikipedia. Meaning, if a user continues the same behavior as pointed out in the "warning," what should be done? Is this something that should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement, to AN/I, or where exactly? Also, what type of evidence should be used to prove a continuation of the behavior (diffs, I assume?), and how much evidence would be necessary to prove the misbehavior lingers on despite of the "warning"? Regards.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 21:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: L235 ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: GorillaWarfare ( Talk) & Euryalus ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Dear Committee, this is a comment to formally acknowledge that I have read the Proposed Decision. I also would like to again extend my prior commitment to dialogue, in case any further questions would like to be asked that I can help respond (and/or clarify). Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this near decade-long problem; so many fellow editors are no longer with us today who I am certain would also be just as grateful for the proposed solutions—it deeply saddens me to remember them while I reflect on my own time here in Wikipedia. I look forward to further collaborations! Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 08:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Antipatico, there was no other remedy than to block you for some time according to the "sabotage against the project" that constitutes your attitude in the matter of article titles. You were given multiple reasons, but did not understand them. Multiple long discussions were had, but you did not understand them. You went to the administrator's noticeboard, and there were explained and again did not understand them. Your opinion was against principle, according to the policies and the opinion of all else who participated. And you did not understand them. You were asked for reasons, but did not provide them. You were given 15 days, but did not use the time. The time being up, it was proceeded to be done as announced, but, evidently, you did not understand it. Revert after systematic revert to defend a series of arbitrary titles without any other reason than your closed negativity and refusal to step beyond argumentations. That is, I told you, you were advised, you were retold, and yet continued repeating your behavior and sabotage. As such, you are now being sanctioned, as all those who obstruct the project are sanctioned. We are neither here for fights nor stubbornness, we are constructing an encyclopedia on the basis of certain norms. I hope that the block for a week will help change your attitude. Greetings, Galio.
Regarding the 1RR: Getting either party to dialogue is not an issue. The evidence shows that this case has gone through various talk page, AN/I, and formal mediation discussions. A 1RR restriction wouldn't be a remedy, and could instead be misused as a leverage to avoid discussions. I would instead suggest placing a permanent semi-protection on the War of the Pacific article, as this would encourage account creation to engage in dialogue.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 22:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Even after the article Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) was renamed, the name "Secret Alliance Treaty..." continues to be used excessively by Keysanger whenever possible. This is borderline user behavior, but certainly relates to the content. How much emphasis on the secrecy of the document is too much emphasis before it becomes disruptively WP:POINTY?
-- Keysanger ( talk) 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It is noteworthy about the quality and intention of the discussion that the user who wrote
will be allowed to continue his edits about Bolivia. At the contrary, the user who denounced these aberrations to the Arbitration Committee will be impeded through a topic ban about Bolivia. Good night Wikipedia. --Keysanger 13:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Mildly, and at the risk of treading through issues already discussed in the case - these are really old diffs (all from 2009). The issue of rehashing really very old material like this was discussed during the evidence and workshop phases and is referenced in the PD. There's no "statute of limitations" on old edits, but to make a case for current disruption you need more current edits than these.
On the four points listed further above (noting this is all my personal view, and other Arbs might disagree):
Two closing comments:
Further comments welcome. -- Euryalus ( talk) 04:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom wrote [10] Keysanger (talk · contribs) is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, and not to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.
as response to:
[11] Keysanger had been diagnosed with BPD
The whole case is getting a dilettante buffoonery. --Keysanger 12:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the Transparency and confidentiality policy, the ArbCom members are bound to make public detailed rationales for decisions.
Based on this right, I ask the ArbCom to clear following decisions:
In order to compare the gravity of the deeds, I solicit the ArbCom to use this diff] ( Talk to me, if you need more English.) as reference for comparisons. This sentence has been used to justify a my tban from all articles about Bolivia.
Furthermore, I ask the Arbitration Committee to reflect the respective Evidence in the "Locus of the Dispute" and to find a remedies to avoid their repetition in the future. Without an extensive answer to these questions, any productive and acceptable results will stay away from the case. --Keysanger 06:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The reference to WP:3O in "Other content disputes" implies that a Third Opinion can contribute to consensus or be a tiebreaker. While I suppose that the Committee may have the discretion to require the parties to regard it in that manner, it should be noted that 3O's do not ordinarily contribute to or "count" towards consensus. See the current note at the top of the 3O page that says that 3O's are not binding and my History of the Third Opinion project not being a tiebreaker or binding. If that remedy is going to pass and the reference to 3O is going to be left in, some future drama might be avoided by saying that the parties are to regard 3O's as binding even though they do not ordinarily have that effect. (And if you do that, you might also want to take into consideration that doing so puts the content issue in question into the hands of a single editor very much like content arbitration might do. And what happens if one party says A, the second party says B, and the Third Party says C (which often happens)? Does C become a binding content decision on A & B?) The best direction here might be to eliminate the reference to 3O from that remedy. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering, how exactly do "warnings" work in Wikipedia. Meaning, if a user continues the same behavior as pointed out in the "warning," what should be done? Is this something that should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement, to AN/I, or where exactly? Also, what type of evidence should be used to prove a continuation of the behavior (diffs, I assume?), and how much evidence would be necessary to prove the misbehavior lingers on despite of the "warning"? Regards.-- MarshalN20 ✉ 🕊 21:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)