| Revision as of 01:30, 4 August 2010 editRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: clerks pls close← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:09, 4 August 2010 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →Request for clarification: User:Betacommand: Removing per Rlevse's requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| = {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} = | = {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} = | ||
| {{-}}{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}} | {{-}}{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}} | ||
| == Request for clarification: ] == | |||
| '''Initiated by –]]''' at 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{bureaucrat2|Xeno}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Betacommand}} / {{userlinks|Δ}} | |||
| *{{bureaucrat2|Deskana}} | |||
| *{{bureaucrat2|X!}} | |||
| === Statement by Xeno === | |||
| I have recently a ] (). However, lingering questions remain. | |||
| Betacommand was ] by bureaucrats in 2007. In 2008, he was community banned indefinitely. In July 2009, he was ] by the Arbitration Committee, with terms. Terms 1 ''(edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection)'' and 3 ''(agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted)'' do not appear to have an expiration date (when compared to terms 2 and 4, which did). | |||
| Betacommand again sought the usurpation of the Δ username on or about 25 June 2010 (via IRC), which was performed by ] on 25 June , who later commented with respect to the off-wiki handling of the request . His comments indicate that Betacommand did not remind Deskana of the previously denied request. | |||
| Betacommand begin editing as {{user|Δ}} on 11 July (when terms 2 and 4 of the provisional unban had lapsed). He made a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard to move his userrights from ] to the new account at 21:49, 11 July 2010, suggesting he was ''"no longer under any restrictions"'' . While none of the rights required bureaucratic intervention, I believe he made the request to have some form of bureaucratic approval of the ''de facto'' "rename". Discussion ensued, and several users (including bureaucrats) expressed concerns. | |||
| At some point, Betacommand made an off-wiki request to bureaucrat {{user|X!}} to transfer the userrights, which was done at 04:19, 12 July 2010 . X! later commented after concerns were raised . His comments indicate that Betacommand did not inform X! of the ongoing noticeboard thread. | |||
| As I see it, the questions before the committee are: | |||
| #Were terms 1 and 3 of the provisional unban time-limited? | |||
| #If not, does Betacommand's abandoning of the {{user|Betacommand}} account in favour of {{user|Δ}} present an issue (in particular for term 1)? | |||
| #Does the fact that Betacommand made requests off-wiki that had already been denied on wiki, or were still under discussion, present cause for concern? | |||
| #Is Betacommand presently under any restrictions (imposed by the Arbitration Committee or the community, see in particular the listing at ])? | |||
| #Does his abandoning of his original account in favour of this new account present cause for concern (especially given that the contributions and relevant logs have not been transferred)? | |||
| ;Response | |||
| @Jack, Yes - had this request come via the usual means, the committee would've likely been at least pinged. As it is, the process is running backwards. The suggestion from another user below that this was brought to 'badger' is unfounded and unnecessary. The concerns being raised at BN were largely out of the bureaucrat's jurisdiction, this is why the matter was brought here. Personally, I think the rename should be allowed (though it would've been wiser to make the request through on-wiki channels), but feel the ambiguities need to be resolved as well. –]] 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| @Kirill, Thank you for the swift response - this resolves the questions. It should be noted that Δ has a ], so #1 will (at some point) need to be amended to allow editing using approved bots. –]] 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ;Regarding ] | |||
| Kirill says below that the provisions of ''Betacommand 2'' are still in effect: but would this statement apply to the ] section at the bottom? I'd guess that those were probably "washed out" by the community ban and subsequent ArbCom suspension of the same, but a BAG member has requested clarification and noted that this <sup>and provision #1 as noted above at 03:40</sup> is the only thing they can see holding up approval of the bot task (a fairly low-key task clerking an administrative page) . –]] 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) <sup>clarified at 16:28, 21 July 2010</sup> | |||
| *FYI: ]. –]] 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ;Resolved | |||
| In response to Newyorkbrad's question: Yes, I think everything requiring clarification or amendment has been addressed. Thanks, –]] 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft === | |||
| Even if it was a restriction without a one year time limit, he hasn't violated it. He's still continued to edit under one username. There is no policy preventing a person from abandoning one account in favor of another. His last edit as Betacommand was 20:56, 11 July 2010. His first edit as Δ was 21:44, 11 July 2010. There is no crossover, no editing as two accounts. With respect to the denial of the change ''three years earlier'', ]. Even if all the restrictions were in place even now, the restrictions do not prohibit him from starting a new account and abandoning his old. This filing is badgering of this editor. This editor is trying to make a clean start, and is even ] post the expiration of his editing restrictions. ] and give him a chance. Nothing nefarious is happening here. --] (]) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Jack Merridew === | |||
| Compare with my case; I ''am'' specifically restricted to editing with this specific user name; Betacommand would seem to be simply restricted to not using multiple accounts, i.e. the bot account. There's a connection via the old name's deletion and renaming logs, so there seems to be no real issue here, other than a clarification that it's ok. Am I missing something? FWIW, I think seeking this clarification is a good thing, and that it would probably have been the best route to have taken earlier this month. Cheers, ] 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by uninvolved Anomie === | |||
| Kirill, there is some ambiguity regarding whether "the provisions of the ''Betacommand 2'' case are technically in effect" includes the ] or only the ArbCom remedies. ]] 16:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Re xeno: It's not the ''only'' thing, there is also the need for Δ to have the unban provision #1 amended to allow for a bot account. ]] 16:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Re Kirill: Thank you. ]] 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Re Δ: That is the second of the 4 terms ArbCom presented you with. But even though that term has expired, term #1 ("You edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection") still prohibits your using more than one account. So yes, now that term #2 is expired you may operate bots or run automated scripts of whatever nature, but since term #1 is still in force you must do that under only one username which unfortunately means you still can't run a bot because you cannot run it under the bot account. And there are also the separate community-imposed restrictions, which require you review and approve each and every individual edit the bot would make (which really makes it script-assisted editing rather than a bot). ]] 02:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Betacommand === | |||
| <blockquote>For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition.</blockquote> | |||
| Given the phrasing of ArbCom's statement, I read it as that after one year I am (i) able to comment/edit non-free related material. (iii) Allowed to run bots, and use automated/simi auto tools. (iv) allowed to give more input in BRFA/bot related issues (v) No longer have an edit throttle. ] 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist === | |||
| The Committee's restrictions run concurrently to those imposed by the community, but they are distinct (separate). The exception to this rule is where the Committee explicitly lifts or supersedes a community restriction, or in a practical sense, where the community does not recognise (aka refuses to enforce) a Committee restriction; such situations only should arise in exceptional circumstances. In this case, there was no exception to the rule, so the community restrictions remain in force (until they are explicitly lifted or superseded by the community or the Committee). And for this purpose, in the absence of appropriate notice to either or both AN/ANI, as well as notifications to the users who commented in the original sanction discussion, a discussion at BAG would not constitute a community consensus. ] (]) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by other user === | |||
| <!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> | |||
| === Clerk notes === | |||
| *'''Recused''' ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Arbitrator views and discussion === | |||
| Responding to Xeno's questions in order: | |||
| # To the best of my knowledge, provisions 1 and 3 were intended to be of indefinite duration, and were communicated to Betacommand as such. | |||
| # The rename itself is not a violation of provision 1 per se, since the provision does not require either (a) retaining the current username or (b) informing the Committee prior to changing it. | |||
| # This may potentially be a cause for concern, but I don't see it as a matter for the Committee at this stage; it's something that ought to be brought up in a user conduct RFC or a similar venue first. | |||
| # As previously noted, provisions 1 and 3 of the unban conditions remain in force. In addition to those, the provisions of the ''Betacommand 2'' case are technically in effect, but are of limited relevance given that Betacommand is no longer operating a bot account. | |||
| # As in #3, this may potentially be a cause for concern on some level, but is not a violation of the restrictions imposed on him, and should be discussed by the community first. | |||
| ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :In response to the followup questions regarding the community restrictions: I don't believe that there's any real precedent for a situation of this sort, but my feeling is that such community restrictions remain in effect until they are explicitly rescinded by either the community or the Committee. Since Betacommand's appeal to the Committee concerned only his ban, not any additional restrictions ("The Arbitration Committee has decided that the community ban... be provisionally suspended"), I would say that the other restrictions are still in place, and would thus prohibit the operation of a bot unless the community considers the discussion at BAG in and of itself as indicating sufficient consensus for lifting them. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Just to chime in here, I think Kirill got all of that exactly right. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *While this request was pending, the committee adopted a new motion/amendment concerning Delta/Betacommand. Does this, coupled with Kirill's post, resolve all or most of this request for clarification? ] (]) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **In view of Xeno's response to my question, I think this can now be closed and archived. ] (]) 04:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **Clerks please close.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Revision as of 03:09, 4 August 2010
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |