Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:13, 5 April 2013

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

Miss Supranational

Please take a look at the Miss Supranational article. I think the article needs page protection for continuous vandalism of an editor who is the Chief Operating Officer of the pageant. He has threatened to bring the matter into legal action as indicated in his edit summaries. I asked him to participate in the discussion either in his talk page or at the Miss Supranational talk page but he refused to do so. Thank you.--Arielle Leira (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have locked the page for 24 hours, and sent you both a notice about edit warring. I have also left a notice on the talkpage. Please attempt to resolve your dispute by discussion. If the other party does not engage in discussion, but continues to edit the article in a manner that concerns you, please read WP:Dispute resolution and follow the advice there. If you do not get prompt assistance and are growing frustrated you may contact me again, and I will look more closely at the matter. SilkTork 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration requests

Hello SilkTork. Would you please clarify the meaning of what you said here, that the committee would accept a case about race and intelligence if someone requested it in 2013? Newyorkbrad's reason for declining the request is that problems are not continuing, but they still are. Future Perfect at Sunrise is still making admin actions while involved, and refusing to respond to other editors' queries about them, and Mathsci is still gaming The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban with him. I offered to present some evidence about that, but nobody asked me to, and now it's too late because the case is being declined. This issue has already been through arbitration enforcement multiple times, and the committee also declined to make the interaction bans mutual, with the reason that it required a full case. If that was their reason to reject the motion to do that, but they also won't open a case, it's not clear how they expect that to be resolved. Akuri (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've looked at that arbitration request yet. As regards what one member of the Committee says - we are a group of individuals, so we will have differing opinions. Added to which, our own views will change in line with changing circumstances and new information, or perhaps even just private reflection. Sometimes we speak as fellow site users; sometimes we speak as individual members of the Committee (which - without looking at the link, but bearing in mind the context - is probably what I was doing at the time), and sometimes we speak for the Committee. It can be difficult at times for others to know what voice we are using! I'll take a look at the link and the case request at some point today, and give you a more considered response later. SilkTork 14:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked. My comment, that you quote, was in relation to the trolling of Mathsci, not in relation to the editing of the race and intelligence topic. They may overlap, but they are not quite the same thing. SilkTork 15:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I assumed it was all the same issue. Is the situation in which you would support opening a case if it were focused on how Mathsci reacts to others, instead of about the race and intelligence topic in general? Akuri (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked earlier and saw the case request is being declined. SilkTork 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's being declined. That's why I'm asking. Dbate1 did not present his request in a way that Arbcom thought should be accepted, and neither did I. But you and a few other arbitrators said that Arbcom should accept a case about some part of these issues if someone requested it in 2013, and the reason Arbcom didn't pass a motion to turn any of the one-way interaction bans into mutual bans is because they decided there should be a full case instead.

The one-way interaction bans still are in effect and still are being gamed. I assume Arbcom still doesn't approve of that happening, and I also assume they won't pass a motion to make them mutual, because both of the times that was proposed the motion failed because they decided a full case was necessary. Therefore there must be some type of case request that Arbcom WOULD accept, even though Dbate1 and I presented it the wrong way. I won't make another request right away, but I might make one sometime next month if the same issues continue, so I'd like guidance on what type of request Arbcom would be likely to accept. Could you please clarify what type of request you would support accepting? Akuri (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)