Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Jack4576 (talk) at 06:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notification of closing admin: (diff)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI discussion that lead to ban
• Separate, contemporaneous, & overlapping ANI discussion (at one point, the two discussions were merged on the page)

Statement by Jack4576

I accept that my comments at AfD were uncivil, and I accept that the incivility ought to be subject to sanction.

I disagree with the assessment of consensus by User:El_C in the discussion. The consensus is in some respects questionable due to a number of involved editors contributing to !votes that formed a part of the consensus assessment. Other issues with the discussion include dogpiling, TAGTEAMing, and general lack of quality in the overall discussion and thread that led to the ban (edit 1 & 5)

Additionally, in my view an indefinite TBAN from AfD is overly harsh

There were a reasonable amount of editors in favour of a time-limited ban, or no sanction at all. Such that I do not think an indefinite AfD TBAN is a fair assessment of the consensus here. I humbly submit that the more appropriate outcome would be a time-limited sanction (edit 2)

Alternatively, I would ask that the RNI be re-opened, with a committent from all editors (including myself) that no bludgeoning or bad behaviour ought occur. While some described my edits as bludgeoning, (a characterisation I think arguable but disputable, as I was defending myself from a pile-on; with distinct allegations being raised that required a distinct response in defence) there were other editors involved in the discussion, not targeted, that provided a large volume of comments and indeed dominated the discussion to a degree. (edit 7)

The overall quality of the discussion was very low, and while I contributed to this, I humbly submit that the fault was not totally of mine own. (edit 4 & 6)

I am raising this appeal to ArbCom, rather than to the community, on the basis that there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion and its closure (edit 3)

Per the comment of User:Elemimele: "I don't see quite such a convenient consensus. I see a lot of discussion with extensive "comment" sections that don't commit to supporting, and a handful of well-expressed opposes too. And this is not supposed to be a simple pile-on vote is it? For what it's worth I oppose the topic ban strongly. I disagree completely with Jack's arguments, viewpoint, and complete disregard of policy on notability, but (1) how difficult is it for an AfD closer to ignore non-policy-based, short "keeps" like Jack's? And (2) Jack is what happens when you have an open, collaborative encyclopaedia: people disagree with you. Banning Jack looks uncomfortably like banning disagreement. Not a great message to send." (edit 8)

Statement by El_C

This was a sanction imposed by the community, so it should be appealed to the community rather than to ArbCom. El_C 06:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Ban of Jack4576 from AfD: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ban of Jack4576 from AfD: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)