Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Amendment to Race and intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned)

Original announcement

• One question: the fact that interaction bans remain with Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate seems to be moot, since they are both themselves banned. Is that normal? Guy (Help!) 23:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Excellent question - I do note that Cla68 is blocked, not banned; so should be treated as if still a member of the community. (per WP:BLOCKBANDIFF) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• While it may seem counterintuitive JzG, it's not out of the ordinary. Cla68 can appeal his block at any time, and TDA after 1 July 2016 (if my math is correct). It also prevents Mathsci from discussing Cla68 and TDA. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. I was just wondering what to look out for. Actually I suspect Mathsci won't violate this unless one or other of the block and ban is lifted and they start poking him with a stick, so hopefully there's nothing to worry about here. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Formerly banned editor remains banned from interacting with currently banned editors. Everyking (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Kharkiv07 appointed as a full clerk

Original announcement

Amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case (Ottava Rima unbanned)

Original announcement

These parts of the statement seem to conflict; perhaps this could be clarified? "Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations." versus "Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators." --Rschen7754 18:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I read it as "Enforcement blocks [for IBAN violations] (including of Ottava)...", whereas the other clause is for breach of these restrictions. Amazing how much wordsmithing can go into something and still leave it unclear... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between this and Carl Hewitt that prompted it, but not this, to be announced at WP:AN? Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

People *remember* Ottava Rima. Personally I think this is a horrible mistake Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So we can discuss it here, as long as we dont make any mention or link to his global block log which shows why he was blocked on every damn project he contributed at? Well Nyttend apparantly you have your answer. Arbcom dont actually want anyone to comment or discuss this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

According to meta:Special:CentralAuth/Ottava Rima, he's not currently blocked anywhere except for Commons. Is there a page where we can see an account's block logs from all wikis? Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, it was probably my fault it was not posted at AN. I'm still new at the job and I was in a bit of a hurry; thanks for putting it up there. User:Only in death, that's a really clever answer, but not everything is a conspiracy. Maybe. Plus, it doesn't say you can't discuss him; you will have to try and do it in a civilized manner. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see only "a consensus of uninvolved administrators" can sanction OR if he should violate the new restrictions. Has the committee given some thought to who is an involved admin for this purpose? Anybody (whether they were then an admin or not) who commented on OR's 2009 RFA, or on the 2009 RFAR, or who had adversarial (or supportive) dealings with OR before he was blocked on 22 Dec 2009? Or? I'm by no means panting to be part of such a consensus myself, I'm more just curious. It's sure to come up if there should be a problem with OR's editing, which we all hope won't happen. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

  There can't possibly be a single admin who was promoted prior to 2009 who is uninvolved with Ottava Rima. It does not compute. Katie^talk 17:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Well, that was my thought too, but I was hoping to hear from an arbitrator whether they had thought through the uninvolved thing or not. Hopefully with an explanation of why arbitration enforcement of OR's restrictions can't be entrusted to the discretion of a single admin, the way we are apparently trusted to deal with "anyone found to be goading or baiting him". If it really can't, I agree with Katie that uninvolved oldtimers would be like snowballs in hell. So how about changing the phrasing in the amendment from "consensus of uninvolved administrators" to "consensus of administrators who joined Wikipedia after 20 Dec 2009"? (That was when the original one-year block was placed.) I believe such a simplified definition would forestall much lawyering. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

  I am retired, so this is probably irrelevant, but I was reading this page and thought I'd mention it. I was promoted in July 2007 (a year when there were hundreds of admin promotions, some of whom actually might have been justified), and I'm pretty sure I never had any dealings with Ottava. So if I didn't (and I used to frequent the drama boards), I'm sure there were plenty of others as well. Anyway, back to retirement. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Bish, this was a difficult thing. Obviously Ottava had and still has enemies, and the concern was that one single admin with a bone to pick could get this poetic train off the rails with a quick block or whatever. But not every admin who voted for or against Ottava in an RfA or an ArbCom case or an ANI discussion is INVOLVED: that's stretching INVOLVEDness out too much. For now, can we just let the guy write content? He's got some serious restrictions, but he appealed successfully, acknowledging past wrongs, so let him get back to it. Even those who hate him know he's written good stuff (though on some boooooring poets!)--this is a happy occasion. So let's try and make this a workable situation, from which we can all benefit. I'm counting on your help too, Bish, and I've sent chocolates and bourbon to Black Kite to goad them out of retirement. Give it up, BK; you can't spend the rest of your life fishing. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• This doesn't answer the question but there are admins who joined Wikipedia after 2009. I assume anyone weighing in on his case would familiarize themselves with the circumstances of his banning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned that's not necessary. Ottava's edits don't become better or worse because someone becomes better acquainted with his history. Just judge him fairly. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There are very few people who I feel have earned themselves a lifetime ban, but this is one of them. He is a toxic personality and should not be allowed back under any circumstances. I urge the ArbCom to revisit the cases of the many editors it has wrongly sanctioned over the years instead of wasting time on one who actually got what he deserved. Everyking (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

Original announcement

• Let me just say: I've always leaned towards rehabilism, and I'm super glad that current committee works so hard to find ways to allow editors banned eons ago back onto the project and give them another chance. Indefinite does not mean infinite. :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  Well, ok, but given that he still can't actually edit any articles this isn't really what you're talking about. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  It's a first step in the right direction! This and Ottava Rima'a amendment higher is still more than any previous committee has done for these two. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Does User:Prof._Carl_Hewitt his userpage count as autobiographical editing? It seems pretty article-tone.--v/r - TP 19:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

  You're right that parts 3c and 4 of this motion appear to conflict, particularly given the current state of his userspace. I would generally say let him write this article about himself in his userspace—userpages are noindexed, so I don't see much harm in allowing it, particularly given that it's unlikely someone who isn't specifically seeking out his userpage will find it. That said, it's worth getting input from my colleagues, because this is unclear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Someone mentioned this awhile back - I forget where - and I put that {{userpage}} template on. Userspace is noindexes, so I think it's harmless - in fact, perhaps a useful alternative to asking for frequent changes to the real article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Personally don't care about the page in question, but committee should be aware (if they aren't already) that not all Web crawlers respect robots.txt Robots exclusion standard. NE Ent 08:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  All crawlers that matter do. I think this is a non-issue. —Ruud 17:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare and Opabinia regalis: In my statement regarding this motion, I noted that Hewitt should be explicitly prohibited from "posting ... announcements of talks or papers" and that there should be "a clear rule stating that [such] contributions can be removed from articles and talk pages". This language has not been literally included in the motion. Hewitt has immediately used this leeway to abuse his talk page access for promotional purposes [1]. This would not be so bad if what I feared would happen did not also in fact happen: a user not intimately familiar with the history of this case acting as an enabler for Hewitt [2][3]. The end result of this is, besides from additional wasted time, that Hewitt may again end up banned and us being back to square one. Some additional clarification in the text of the motion may be warranted. —Ruud 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ruud Koot: Well, "announcements" don't really belong on talk pages in any case; WP:NOTFORUM applies to Hewitt just like anyone else. Assuming that this particular material does not warrant inclusion, part 3 of the motion specifically addresses the possibility of long or repetitive reposts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)