Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: EEML (3)

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Eastern European mailing list
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 7
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • NA

Amendment 1

  • [1]
  • The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed below solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article. Martintg may also create a category for unreferenced Estonia-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia.

Statement by Martintg

This request is an extension to Radek's previous request[2] concerning the sourcing of Polish BLPs. There are a number of Estonia related BLPs also lacking references. Steve Smith suggested[3] that if Radek's request passes I should identify specific BLP articles in need of sourcing. I have amalgamated the two amendments (BLP sourcing and category creation) into one since they are both related to the list of articles mentioned below.

Preliminary list of Estonia related unsourced BLPs that would be excluded from the topic ban for purposes of referencing

I've returned from vacation and have now gone through all the BLPs and the following require sourcing: Natalja Abramova, Allan Alaküla, Toomas Altnurme, Maire Aunaste, Toomas Frey, Piret Järvis, Ülle Kukk, Teet Kask, Ülo Kaevats, Kaur Kender, Vilma Kuusk, Malle Leht, Andres Lipstok, Leiki Loone, Sven Lõhmus, Ene Mihkelson, Helle Meri, Kristine Muldma, Sulev Mäeltsemees, Ester Mägi, Sulev Oll, Birgit Õigemeel, Reet Priiman, Tiit Pääsuke, Kuno Pajula, Aarne Ruben, Martti Soosaar, Peeter Torop, Endel Taniloo, Taimo Toomast, Indrek Toome, Hannes Võrno, Mart Ummelas

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Noted. Please be patient and allow time for discussion and voting. Could be anything up to a week. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: EEML (2)

Initiated by Durova403 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Eastern European mailing list
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

It is a pleasure to come to this page with something positive. Recently Cary Bass asked who might be a suitable editor to do an improvement drive for the Lech Walesa biography. Piotrus came to mind of course as Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of good articles and featured articles about Poland. I conveyed this with all the appropriate caveats about Piotrus's editing status, and mentioned that last year ScienceApologist had run a successful improvement drive for the optics article during his siteban, with ArbCom's approval. Both Cary and Piotrus were interested in requesting a similar arrangement so I sought a team of people to proxy Piotrus's edits and facilitate good article candidacy.

Malik and Xavexgoem have agreed to be facilitators. Xavexgoem is an administrator and mediator who has mediated Eastern European disputes and Malik is familiar with the area. To facilitate review Piotrus has agreed to use only English language sources.

The current wording of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users appears to allow this type of limited proxy editing. Yet the recent arbitration was unusually contentious and we wish to take steps in advance to ensure that this proposed content drive is not mistaken for ban evasion.

So I would like to propose the following case amendment:

The applicability of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users in general is confirmed for this request, and in particular, Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem and Durova have permission to proxy for Piotrus by editing the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and at process pages directly related to the Good Article request.

Malik Shabazz and Xavexgoem should be adding their agreement to this proposal shortly, and Piotrus should be emailing the Committee to affirm his endorsement of this request. Respectfully submitted, Durova403 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xavexgoem

I support this wholeheartedly. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I fully support this. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This seems reasonable enough, but I don't see any need to cite the general policy when we're granting an explicit authorization. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

(There being 17 arbitrators, of which 1 is inactive and 1 is recused, 8 is a majority)~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Proxy authorization

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

Support
  1. Proposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 07:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm willing to see how this turns out. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although it would be more efficient to amend by replacing the current siteban with a topic ban (a very broad topic ban, if desired), and then make this article an exception to the topic ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Siteban needs to be fully served or fully appealed, otherwise such things become meaningless. Limited proxy exceptions are fine. Carcharoth (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This scheme has been used with some success in past cases, and fosters future collaboration and return to constructive editing. — Coren (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Willing to give it a try. - Mailer Diablo 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per SirFozzie. KnightLago (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. yes, although I'm in Brad's camp in general Fritzpoll (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. banned means banned. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Recuse
  1. Recused on EEML and related matters.  Roger Davies talk 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: EEML

Initiated by radek (talk) at 08:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Eastern European mailing list
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 10
  2. and possibly Remedies 2, 3, 4.2, 5, 7, 8, 8.2, 9.1, 17.1, 18.1, 19, 20


List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

and possibly

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

The editors listed as "possibly" concerned above have been notified on their talk pages. Not sure if anyone else needs formal notification.

Amendment 1

  • [4]
  • The one year topic ban from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same does not apply to the provided list of unsourced Poland related BLP articles which may be edited for the purposes of referencing them in order to avoid deletion (and because reffing unsourced BLPs is a good thing in and of itself).

Statement by Radek

I realize that this request may end up creating some "side drama" to the "major drama" that is now ongoing with respect to the existence and potential deletion of many unreferenced BLPs. However, I am sufficiently concerned that many notable articles on people related to Poland may end up being deleted as a consequence of the current situation that I think this request for an amendment is justified.

I've responded to the eruption of the issue of unreferenced BLPs by trying to add references to some of them (for example [5] (it's crazy that this guy was an unreffed BLP), here, here, here, and here. There've been some failures to find sources as well, for example, here, here, and here) But as I was looking through the list of unreferenced BLPs to my frustration I noticed a large number of articles on Poles that could be easily referenced by someone fluent in Polish and with access to Polish sources. I include a short list, based on the first 5000 entries from this list [6] below (Note, due to the ongoing developments, the list may not be current). Obviously, the topic ban prevents me from referencing these BLPs and thus saving them from potential deletion.

Therefore I am requesting that the topic ban on Eastern European articles is lifted in regard to unreferenced Poland related BLPs.

I understand that there may be concerns about slippery slopes which may lead to the topic ban ending up being ineffectual or to possible loopholes that such a partial lifting of the topic ban may create which, ABF, would lead to WP:Game. In order to alleviate these kinds of concerns I propose that I create and submit a specific list of unreferenced BLP articles from the link above (the list I include below can be taken as a preliminary submission - as referencing works progresses it would be extended to include other BLPs) to the ArbCom, that this list be approved and that the lifting of the topic ban is specifically applied to the articles on the list. Any editing to Eastern Europe related articles that are not on the approved list would still constitute a violation of the topic ban of course.

The list of articles includes some very notable people, for example Jolanta Kwaśniewska (former first lady of Poland and a notable persona in her own right), Henryk Chmielewski (an author of one of the most popular Polish comic books of all time), and Kazik Staszewski (a very well known and popular Polish musician). It would be a very significant loss to Wikipedia, and quite a shame, if these kinds of articles ended up being deleted.

I have not consulted in this matter with any other editors who were part of the Arbitration Case (staying away from mailing lists these days) and I think it is best to let them speak for themselves. However, I anticipate that some of them would likewise like to participate in referencing Estonian, Latvian, Moldovan, Polish, Romanian, Russian or Ukrainian unreffed BLPs. Hence, I've included them as "possible" parties in this request.

Please see Amendment 2 below.

Response to Varsovian
Ummm.... no.... you were not mentioned on the mailing list. You made your appearance on Wikipedia well after the case had been opened. Right smack in the middle of it in fact. Strange that you would claim this, though of course it's perfectly possible you got your dates mixed up. At any rate, I do commend you for making the statement that "I have tried very hard not to be drawn into the very nasty debate that accompanied the case.". As irrelevant as it is to this request ... I do commend you for making it.radek (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
x2 Varsovian, believe me, I want to put the case behind me as much as anyone else. Probably more. However, the current situation with unreferenced BLPs, and their deletion is exceptional and apparently a sort of "slowly unfolding" emergency. Hence this proposal. I also don't see anything potentially controversial here among the articles - and the amendments would cover mostly just adding the new category and adding references.radek (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Varsovian

Despite the fact that I was apparently mentioned on the EEML, I have tried very hard not to be drawn into the very nasty debate that accompanied the case. After reading the bitter and damaging comments from both sides and seeing how much harm the case did to WP, my conclusion is that now the case is finally over, we need to draw a very firm line under it and walk away. Every thing that happened happened and now it is over. For that reason I am utterly opposed to any amendment for any reason to any of the outcomes of the case. Varsovian (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that should have read "I was apparently discussed by the EEML". I remember clearly a translation being posted by one of the members of the EEML of a Polish language email which mentioned me. It was during the case (towards the end of the case, I think it was when one of the members of EEML accidentally posted some email to WP when his computer malfunctioned). But regardless of that, my point still stands unchanged: this whole mess was very very nasty and now that it is finally over, we need to make sure that it says over, we should not revisit it.Varsovian (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Martintg

??? I don't recall Varsovian ever being discussed on the EEML, unless he is a sock of someone we did discuss. I do note that he only joined on September 28, 2009, after the EEML case was opened. BTW, I did a quick check (I'm on vacation so I didn't really spend too much time on this) in the Baltic topic space and there are also quite a few unreferenced BLPs. If the Committee are of a mind to amend the remedy, perhaps it could be made more generic to cover the other sub-topic areas within EE.--Martin (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

  • [7]
  • The one year topic ban from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same does not apply to the creation of "Category:Poland related unreferenced BLPs", to the tagging of relevant articles with this category, or to the announcement of the category's existence at WikiProject Poland.

Statement by Radek

In order to get some help with referencing some of these articles I would like to create a Category for Poland related unreferenced BLPs. Doing so right now would of course be a violation of my topic ban. Since creating such a category would hopefully greatly aid in the efforts of providing these articles with references, I am requesting that the topic ban be lifted from the specific act of creating such a category. For this to be a meaningful act, the category has to be inserted into the appropriate articles. So I'm also asking for the topic ban not to apply to the insertion of the category into unreferenced Polish BLPs as well.

Furthermore, in order to get as much help with this task as possible I am requesting that I would be allowed to make an announcement about this category, the related articles and the general issues involved at WikiProject Poland. That way, other editors, who were not part of the arbitration case can get involved as well. If need be, this announcement can be approved by one of the arbs before it is posted.

Again, while this initiative is my own only, it is possible that other users currently under topic ban may wish to create similar categories with the same intent of referencing Eastern European BLPs.

Preliminary list of Poland related unsrouced BLPs that would be excluded from the topic ban for purposes of referencing

Please note: if anyone thinks that a particular unreferenced BLP article on this list is "too controversial" for some reason, it can be removed.

Andrzej Zulawski (famous Polish film director)

Andrzej Biegalski

Kazik Staszewski (very notable musician, widely known in Poland)

Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski (notable Polish academic/author)

Józef Borzyszkowski

Jan Wyrowinski

Jan Olszewski (major Polish politician)

Zdzislaw Chmielewski

Justine Pasek (Panamanian but Polish-Ukrainian born)

Janusz Onyszkiewicz (famous dissident, politician)

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski

José Szapocznik (Polish-Cuban)

Ryszard Gryglewski

Anna Czekanowska-Kuklinska

Jolanta Kwasniewska (wife of former Polish president and notable in her own right)

Longin Pastusiak (very notable Polish politician)

Henryk Chmielewski (comics) (ugh! My favorite comic book artist from my childhood!)

Lech Trzeciakowski

Wladyslaw Markiewicz

Andrzej Jerzy Lech

Zbigniew Kabata (this guy might drop out of the "living" part of BLP pretty soon)

Jerzy Lukaszewski

Franciszek Jamroz(obviously notable. not in a good way)

Jaroslav Kurzweil (Czech not Polish. I include him because I am somewhat familiar with him)

Monika Olejnik (very well known Polish TV personality)

Kasia Stankiewicz (very well known Polish pop singer)

Statement by Kotniski

I hope this very reasonable request will be granted without drama or delay. Indeed, if there is to be a general uncontrolled purge of unreferenced BLPs as the ruling powers seeem to wish, there ought to be a general amnesty on anyone breaching any kind of ban to add references to such articles, unless the ban was in some way related to such activity (which is highly unlikely). (By rights any uncontentious editing should not count as a breach of a ban, but I realise that's too much of a mindset shift for people around here.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Angus McLellan

I should begin by saying that Radeksz brought this request to my attention, for which I thank him, as I had posted a mention of a Polish-related BLP which was unsourced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland and asked for assistance in sourcing it. I would hope that arbitrators will look favourably upon both amendment 1 and amendment 2. These ask for a quite narrowly defined variance in the original topic ban. The rationale seems sound and the benefit to the project seems clear. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My inclination would be to grant a narrow exemption of some kind, possibly with a proviso that any apparently good faith complaint about POV edits would re-trigger the ban for the article in question. Awaiting others' comments. Steve Smith (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Martin: I think the more general sort of exemption that you propose is a non-starter. If Radek's request is approved, and if you see similar articles that you would like to reference from the Baltic states, you are welcome to put in the work that Radek has in identifying specific articles in need of referencing that you believe to be generally non-contentious. Steve Smith (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Steve Smith, consistent with my original view in voting on the case that the topic bans were too broad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would prefer that someone be assigned to supervise this (and approve additions to the list), rather than just a straight exemption, but no objection in principle. Please note, if any of these get deleted, they can be restored. The important thing is to come up with as complete a list as possible to be entered on the record here. In addition, can anyone in good standing be found to vouch for non-English sources that may be used? Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused on EEML and related matters.  Roger Davies talk 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

(There being 17 arbitrators, of which 2 are inactive and 1 is recused, 8 is a majority)~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

Support
  1. Proposed. I deliberately applied this only to Radek, because it's not a large list of articles and exemplary behaviour since the case closed is a factor in my supporting this. Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mailer Diablo 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm willing to see a bit of a relaxing due to his behavior since the case closed. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Will give this one a try. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. Roger Davies per this diff Noted by Carcharoth (talk)

2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.

Support
  1. Proposed. As this seems a larger task than the one in the previous motion, I may be open to extending the exemption to other topic-banned editors. On the other hand, this also strikes me as something that a bot should be able to do in one fell swoop. Steve Smith (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mailer Diablo 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm willing to support this per above. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KnightLago (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Will give this a try. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. Roger Davies per this diff Noted by Carcharoth (talk)

Request to amend prior case: Ryulong

Initiated by —Ryūlóng (竜龙) at 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Ryulong arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 1: Ryulong desysopped
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

Statement by Ryulong

For the past eight months I have been working on the encyclopedia portion of the project almost exclusively, working on articles, contributing to the manuals of style that I most often encounter, and trying not to cause a scale of the problems that I had encountered with administrative tools. Other than removal of rollback rights after a dispute with Mythdon prior to his ban from the project (I cannot find where the discussion that resulted in this took place) and a couple of 3RR blocks (#1, #2) that were placed hours after the edit wars died (and were later lifted) I have done nothing that requires administrative action to prevent me from doing anything.

With the Twinkle rollback I have used the function to give reasons along with the rollback less than the vandalism tagging one (I have used it and then realized the edits were not meant to deliberately cause damage, but these are rare) and the undo button more to leave comments as to why I am reverting edits.

I will admit that my communications with Powergate92 (talk · contribs) have been getting strained, but I doubt that the issues will escalate to what occurred between myself and Mythdon (talk · contribs).

When I have the administrative tools back, I will use them for what they were intended: maintaining the project, dealing with speedy deletions, blocking vandalizing users, helping settle disputes that show up on ANI and the related boards, etc. I will not use administrative rollback in my primary topic area unless it is blatant vandalism (as a few long term problem users have been cropping up lately within it). I will not threaten to block as a scare tactic. I will convene with other administrators before I perform what may be controversial actions.

If it is requested, I will agree to a form of some period where I am watched to make sure I do not fall back on the methods I used in the past and I expect to be placed under scrutiny once more. I mean the best for this project and I would like to help out once more with the extra buttons available.

To Jtrainor
For one thing, RFA has changed a good deal since I was given the extra buttons 3 years ago. Second, this option has always been available for me to use per the motion in question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Jtrainor

Is there some reason you can't use RfA? Jtrainor (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WereSpielChequers

No view as to the merits of this particular appeal, but entirely supportive of Arbcom having the lesser power of temporary desysop as well as the power of permanent desysop. The implication of that being that "or by appeal to ArbCom no less than 6 months after the closure of the case." means that Ryulong has the right of appeal to Arbcom in this case. So Arbcom should resysop him if they feel that he has done what Arbcom wanted him to do last May when they desysopped him but gave him leave to appeal after 6 months.

For the future I would suggest that when doing temporary desysops Arbcom should make it clear whether the right of appeal is for a fresh look at the case, or for a resysopping based on particular changes in editing activity. ϢereSpielChequers 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

If a good case can be made for returning Admin rights to this user, this case should be made to the community. Even if I were to concede that there may be reasons for Arbcom to restore adminship without a new RFA, that reason needs to be more than concern that the community would not support the RFA. If the user has avoided returning to RFA for this reason, than this proposed restoration could be seen as an attempt to over-rule community concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is my general comment on process. I've done a little more research on this candidate. I'm a little unsure how much more to say. Some recent edits i've found concerned me. It's a resolved situation so I'd say it's not worth mentioning here if this is going to be refered back to the community. On the other hand I don't want to come back tomorrow an find out that Arbcom has restored the bit on the reasoning that the only comments were about process, not specifics. I will await some sort of guidance on the question, should I discuss this here further.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malinaccier

From what I know of RfA, I doubt that Ryulong would be judged by the editors there solely on the reason his tools were removed. My opinion is that he should be judged in context of his arbcom case, as the community has already judged him worthy of the tools. RfA has changed, and if Ryulong had not committed the infractions he was found guilty of, he would still have the tools. Because of this, all of his editing skills and judgement should be considered acceptable except for those brought up in his arbcom case. The community should still have input on this decision, but RfA is not the correct venue from what I can see. Malinaccier (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
  • @Carcaroth/Fritz: Generally agree that some community opinion should be sought. Why not simply make a section at WT:RFA inviting comments here? –xenotalk 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • In keeping with my position that correctly de-sysopped users about whom there is no relevant non-public information should use RFA if they wish to regain adminship, I do not support this request. However, my views on this do not seem to be shared by most of ArbCom, so a motion to amend is certainly a possibility. Steve Smith (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this is a case where an RfA would be most appropriate. The motion indicates several problems that led to removal of the tools and the community should have a chance to weigh in on whether or not to return them. Shell babelfish 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused as a participant in the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm recused in Ryulong's case (a borderline recusal, at the request of a party to the case, but I'll stick with it), but I'll offer a general comment on the practice of the committee's reserving the right to restore adminship without an RfA to an editor who's be desysopped under one of our decisions. This practice is best read as an unspoken caveat to any decision in which we desysop an editor: "X is desysopped" (or, what is equivalent, "X's administrator privileges are revoked") can often mean "X's administrator privileges are suspended indefinitely." In other words, unless conduct is so outrageous that we would never restore adminship, we retain the inherent right to do when we think developments (usually, continued good work on the project without repetition of the types of issues that led to the desysopping) warrant, just as if we used the alternative wording. Our alternative otherwise would be to impose time-limited suspensions, which would end automatically whether or not the editor seemed suitable for re-adminship, and I don't see how that would be better for anyone. Thus, I see no problem with our existing practice of entertaining requests to amend decisions imposing desysopping. As indicated, I offer no view on whether the request should be granted in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused in a similar way as is Newyorkbrad. I largely concur with his other comments. Risker (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - my guiding principle is normally that adminship should not be a big deal, and should be removed and returned far more easily than it is at the moment. However, the community and those at requests for adminship (RFA) often do make adminship a big deal (and are also very slow to forgive, sometimes), and there should be some way to get community input, so not quite sure what to do here. In principle, not opposed to granting this request, but am wondering is there is a way to gauge community feeling on the matter short of an actual RFA? Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seek community input: RfA is such a den of horrors that I am personally reluctant to cast any former admins in its general direction. Suggest a temporary community input process where the community is invited to comment on whether this former admin should be resysopped. Arbcom can then base its decision on the consensus there. Open to thoughts on this idea, which we can enact by motion Fritzpoll (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in favor of RFA. The community's remit is to grant rights in controversial circumstances. We are essentially asking the community to do the same thing in these "discussions", with us judging consensus instead of the crats. Why not just go all the way? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Noting RFA is an option. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=340497313

Leave a Reply