Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:33, 1 November 2008

Statements from non-parties

Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

NB: L=LessHeard vanU, C=Collectonian, A=Abtract, S=Sesshomaru, J=JHunterJ. Unless arbitrators have specific questions for me, this statement is also my evidence.

Introduction

Rather than at the RFC/U, I commented on this dispute as an outside party for the first time during an ANI report, which had been filed by C. L blocked A indefinitely and put the action for review in the report (16 July 2008), and a few users including myself expressed a mixture of agreement with the block, and disagreement with the indef duration (I felt blocks should follow a sequence - eg; 24hrs, 48hrs, etc.) On 18 July, in the same thread, L requested another review on the matter due to A arguing that the block was biased, and on 19 July I reviewed it. I was unconvinced by (and found problems with) C's complaint to justify the duration. L explained his reasoning in a timely manner (within 3 hours). Still, he respected the outside opinion, and changed the block duration to follow that sequence. (See this thread, and the next 2 threads.)

Voluntary restriction

I then wrote out an agreement for A, C and S to follow. A and S agreed, but despite requests by several users including myself, C refused to sign the agreement - this did not help. Anyway, J unblocked A under the agreement. C was unhappy with this and refused to let me close the ANI discussion without some sort of restraining order being put on A, despite the fact I'd explained that it was not possible. In any case, things did manage to die down (or so I thought) and I didn't follow the dispute for sometime after this. Apparently, both A and S violated their agreement and J enforced it against both users (with blocks). After some discussion, A and S agreed to end the agreement: noted by J on 25 August. (See this.)

Non-voluntary restriction

On 2 September, C complained to L (about A). L then requested for my input. I looked into it and gave my view, along with a few proposals on how to resolve the dispute. See C's complaint, and my view in the next thread at 16:38. After discussing it between all parties and myself, L notified the parties of the non-voluntary restrictions that are in effect on 13 September, which went unopposed at WP:AN. Since then, I have not followed this matter thinking it's resolved.

Request for arbitration

Clearly, the problems have not been resolved and the methods we've tried are not working. There's nothing more I can offer - certainly nothing outside of ArbCom - that has a chance of resolving this dispute. I'm fairly confident the wider community can and will not do much more either. This has gone on for months, and it has come to the point where I (like the rest of the parties listed here) think enough is enough. (I don't want to go back to either the wider community or ArbCom anytime in the future regarding this matter - so that's the sort of remedies that I'd favour in this case). I ask that the case be accepted by the Committee to end this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to jpgordon

• Been there, done that, per the non-voluntary editing restriction here which is still in effect. Background/context on the non-voluntary editing restriction is available in my above statement. I'm afraid what users seek here is something more restrictive than that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to all y'all

It is mindless argumentation like this that will be the bane of our encyclopedia. We need to stop arguing and splitting hairs and start editing some fucking articles. Seriously. Despite what many channers will tell you (ironically), the internet is NOT serious business. If you're reading this page, stop, go to your favorite portal, and make some corrections and addtitions, and stop arguing over bullshit. No offense.