Difference between revisions of "En-WP:sandbox"
From Creolista!
(old minor cases removed / begin work on cite templates) |
|||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Arbcom can [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Review_of_community_sanctions|reverse CBANs]], if | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | # they were procedurally unfair | ||
| + | *biased presentation: diffs presented for rhetorical effect rather than in chronological order, rhetorical language includes: vendetta, accused, harassment, harass, attacks, punching bag, book-length rant (589 word statement of fact), battleground mentality, inability to interact with "others", etc. | ||
| + | *[regular !voters] came to sanction me within hours: [BMK], [Johnuniq], [Neutrality], [MrX], [WMSR], [Bishonen], [Jorm], [Objective3000], [Dennis Brown], [Doug Weller], [Hut 8.5]. Was this mentioned on admin IRC? | ||
| + | *the votes were miscounted | ||
| + | *MastCell was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=866330671&oldid=866310440 not a neutral party], having claimed I made no positive contributions. See further... | ||
| + | *no account was taken of the massive trend against a site-ban once evidence was presented (and after El C's statement that they did not seek a site-ban). | ||
| + | *I said I was too busy to mount a defense during the work-week. Despite this, 13 people voted primarily based on my quick edit to remove the rhetoric from the initial report, calling it "deception" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962866332&oldid=962864000 1]+[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962861879&oldid=962858608 2]ABF). The case was closed early despite a clear trend against a site-ban and despite my request to be given adequate time to respond. | ||
| + | **the 12-5 vote to close Tony's case and send the case to ArbCom (by far the proposition with the highest support %) was '''entirely ignored''' in the close (opposed by 3 voters with "unclean hands") | ||
| + | **those !vote of some of those who expressed evidence-based opposition to an immediate site-ban ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=962935089&oldid=962931042&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision 1], [2], [3], ...) was not counted ''at all'' or was given equal weight to !votes like: ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962827130&oldid=9628180921], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962914715&oldid=962914388 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=962864000&oldid=962861879 3], ...) | ||
| + | **Claims such as [1], [2], [3] were debunked but not struck. | ||
| + | **Tryptofish was allowed to continue to violate [his own terms] for the lifting of his I-Ban. Their vote was counted. | ||
| + | **Despite burying statements already shown to be false in walls of text, Kingofaces43's !vote was counted {{small|(possibly twice?)}} | ||
| + | **No mention was made of El C's history of making mistakes concerning me: [1], [2], [3]. | ||
| + | **Discussion of the substantive heart of the incident was chilled by Floquenbeam's [threat to block anyone who mentioned it]. | ||
| − | [[ | + | # the sanction is excessive |
| + | *See [1], [2], [3] | ||
| + | # circumstances changed | ||
| + | *After evidence was presented the case ran 24-12 against a siteban. After El C's statement only 2 people voted for a siteban (one bearing a grudge, the other with an interesting edit history), everyone else opposed it. At that point, the community moved on to the question of moving the case to ArbCom and exploring the issue with evidence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Conclusion: The site-ban should be reversed and an '''evidence-based''' case started if the GMO and AmPol topic bans are to be maintained. Kingofaces43's long history of being a timesink and the evidence of tag-teaming in AmPol (centered around MrX) should be studied. For my part, I agree that I did not react well to being targeted for elimination. See also RS on the main battleground actors: [https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-wikipedia-page-battles 1] (''[[Wired]]'') + [https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.html 2] (''[[Slate (technology)]]'') Note that my name is not included in either article, but that MrX's and Snooganssnoogans' are. | ||
Latest revision as of 00:16, 3 July 2020
Arbcom can reverse CBANs, if
- they were procedurally unfair
- biased presentation: diffs presented for rhetorical effect rather than in chronological order, rhetorical language includes: vendetta, accused, harassment, harass, attacks, punching bag, book-length rant (589 word statement of fact), battleground mentality, inability to interact with "others", etc.
- [regular !voters] came to sanction me within hours: [BMK], [Johnuniq], [Neutrality], [MrX], [WMSR], [Bishonen], [Jorm], [Objective3000], [Dennis Brown], [Doug Weller], [Hut 8.5]. Was this mentioned on admin IRC?
- the votes were miscounted
- MastCell was not a neutral party, having claimed I made no positive contributions. See further...
- no account was taken of the massive trend against a site-ban once evidence was presented (and after El C's statement that they did not seek a site-ban).
- I said I was too busy to mount a defense during the work-week. Despite this, 13 people voted primarily based on my quick edit to remove the rhetoric from the initial report, calling it "deception" (1+2ABF). The case was closed early despite a clear trend against a site-ban and despite my request to be given adequate time to respond.
- the 12-5 vote to close Tony's case and send the case to ArbCom (by far the proposition with the highest support %) was entirely ignored in the close (opposed by 3 voters with "unclean hands")
- those !vote of some of those who expressed evidence-based opposition to an immediate site-ban (1, [2], [3], ...) was not counted at all or was given equal weight to !votes like: ([1], 2, 3, ...)
- Claims such as [1], [2], [3] were debunked but not struck.
- Tryptofish was allowed to continue to violate [his own terms] for the lifting of his I-Ban. Their vote was counted.
- Despite burying statements already shown to be false in walls of text, Kingofaces43's !vote was counted Template:Small
- No mention was made of El C's history of making mistakes concerning me: [1], [2], [3].
- Discussion of the substantive heart of the incident was chilled by Floquenbeam's [threat to block anyone who mentioned it].
- the sanction is excessive
- See [1], [2], [3]
- circumstances changed
- After evidence was presented the case ran 24-12 against a siteban. After El C's statement only 2 people voted for a siteban (one bearing a grudge, the other with an interesting edit history), everyone else opposed it. At that point, the community moved on to the question of moving the case to ArbCom and exploring the issue with evidence.
Conclusion: The site-ban should be reversed and an evidence-based case started if the GMO and AmPol topic bans are to be maintained. Kingofaces43's long history of being a timesink and the evidence of tag-teaming in AmPol (centered around MrX) should be studied. For my part, I agree that I did not react well to being targeted for elimination. See also RS on the main battleground actors: 1 (Wired) + 2 (Slate (technology)) Note that my name is not included in either article, but that MrX's and Snooganssnoogans' are.
