| Revision as of 12:57, 6 September 2009 editVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Mentoring: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:58, 6 September 2009 edit undoVassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 editsm →Mentoring: fix, minor wording choiceNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| :In short, ''all'' of these edits continue to insist that there has been nothing wrong with his conduct, and several of them contain more of the personal attacks which he is being sanctioned for. 194x has received a lot of chances, with plenty of feedback that his behavior is inappropriate. Yet, even after a user conduct RFC was opened about him, he used the EU talkpage to attack them with that the EU ''"wants our souls and the blood from our veins"''; that is not the kind of edit made by someone who wants to change. My view is that ]'s proposed decision for a one-year ban is appropriate. Letting 194x continue to edit at this time, even under a mentoring scheme, will lead to more of the same behavior which has caused so much suffering. ] ] 11:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | :In short, ''all'' of these edits continue to insist that there has been nothing wrong with his conduct, and several of them contain more of the personal attacks which he is being sanctioned for. 194x has received a lot of chances, with plenty of feedback that his behavior is inappropriate. Yet, even after a user conduct RFC was opened about him, he used the EU talkpage to attack them with that the EU ''"wants our souls and the blood from our veins"''; that is not the kind of edit made by someone who wants to change. My view is that ]'s proposed decision for a one-year ban is appropriate. Letting 194x continue to edit at this time, even under a mentoring scheme, will lead to more of the same behavior which has caused so much suffering. ] ] 11:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, if I were to advocate mentoring, which I'm at this point just asking about, it would be with the understanding that a failure to work productively with the mentor would entail an instant ban. The type of mentoring I would offer is one that very few editors are likely to accept; it's true. That's because I would insist on 100% compliance with certain standards: Never making '''any claim of any kind''' about other editors, period. Never reverting without obtaining consensus, period. Never flagging in courteous and respectful interaction, period. <p> Most people would rather be banned than edit that way, it seems. Still I'm happy enough to suggest it as a possible last-chance scenario. <p> I already know that you don't support this solution, Sjakkalle, so there's no point quoting more diffs at me. The type of mentoring I'm talking about, I would offer to ''any'' editor other than a common vandal, because it truly is a last-chance. I would personally throw the banhammer at the first sign of non-cooperation. I'd like to hear feedback from others, if they're interested in commenting. -]<sup>(])</sup> 12:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | ::Well, if I were to advocate mentoring, which I'm at this point just asking about, it would be with the understanding that a failure to work productively with the mentor would entail an instant ban. The type of mentoring I would offer is one that very few editors are likely to accept; it's true. That's because I would insist on 100% compliance with certain standards: Never making '''any claim of any kind''' about other editors, period. Never reverting without obtaining consensus, period. Never flagging in courteous and respectful interaction, period. <p> Most people would rather be banned than edit that way, it seems. Still I'm happy enough to suggest it as a possible last-chance scenario. <p> I already know that you don't support this solution, Sjakkalle, so there's no point quoting more diffs at me. The type of mentoring I'm talking about, I would offer to ''any'' editor other than a common vandal, because it truly is a last-chance. I would personally throw the banhammer at the first sign of non-cooperation. I'd like to hear feedback from others, if they're interested in commenting. -]<sup>(])</sup> 12:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::Mentoring may be a ''possible'' option, but it is not very probable. Newyorkbrad's comment is highly illustrative of why it is an unlikely solution. He clearly lays out why lesser sanctions are unlikely to garner support. His comments are also noteworthy because NYB is anything but ban-happy. I cannot speak for the other arbitrators. In ''my opinion'', considering this context, 194x144x90x118 has a heavy burden of proof |
:::Mentoring may be a ''possible'' option, but it is not very probable. Newyorkbrad's comment is highly illustrative of why it is an unlikely solution. He clearly lays out why lesser sanctions are unlikely to garner support. His comments are also noteworthy because NYB is anything but ban-happy. I cannot speak for the other arbitrators. In ''my opinion'', considering this context, 194x144x90x118 has a heavy burden of proof in convincing us that he would actually be responsive to guidance and work productively under restrictions. --] (]) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| --] (]) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:58, 6 September 2009
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Seddon (Talk) & Mailer diablo (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Wizardman (Talk) |
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
The serious actions of others
It concerns me to see such heavy actions being proposed against me while sanctions against others in this matter don't even seem to be under remote consideration from your part.
20 months of disruptiv editing of that article and I!!!! am supposed to be banned for something? I made a tough call do you really think that it is enjoyable or nice to dive into a can of worm like that? It most certainly aint but I am not one to put his tail in between his legs and run away so I have attempted to deal with the matter.
Scjessey has edited the article disruptivly for 20 months, it is he that you should be sanctioning not me.
Sarekofvulcan misused his admin powers in his pursuit to make the article look more favorable for his beloved webhost.
These matters they don't compare in any way to anything I am supposed to be guilty of, throwing a ban hammer on me without touching these users is a double standard.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- 194x144x90x118, I have reviewed the evidence and consider it one-sided so far. While it is unlikely to mean that you avoid sanctions (your conduct has not been good), I did accept this case to examine the behaviour of all parties, so I cannot in all conscience vote until all sides have received proper scrutiny here, and I am sure that the key disputes are being resolved, rather than one side in a content dispute is being sanctioned for conduct while the conduct of those on the other side of the content dispute is not raised in evidence. I am going to take a close look at this and present some evidence, but I will be doing so from an arbitrator's perspective (one that looks at the behaviour of all parties). If you are unable to present evidence from your perspective, or need help presenting evidence, is there anyone you could ask to present evidence on your behalf? The other question I would have for you (and for the other parties as well if they are reading this), is to look at your own actions and say what you should have done differently, and how your conduct would change in the future? Carcharoth (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Mentoring
I noticed that 194x mentioned he'd be open to mentoring. Is that a solution that the committee is willing to consider, or are his offenses such that banning is the only solution? Just wondering. -GTBacchus 19:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Given that bans are not meant as a means of retribution, the question of banning v. mentoring is not so much about the nature and severity of the offenses. It is about the probability that the offenses will continue happening. Mentoring is used for people who, despite behavioral problems, want to contribute constructively. If they enter such an arangement in good faith, it can work. However, if they want mentoring as a ticket away from being banned, there is a grave danger that the same behavior will continue, and that the mentoring is a mere postponement of the inevitable. Unfortunately,I think that this is an example of the second variety. At the time of writing, 194x has made eight edits since indicating that the mentoring idea "doesn't sound like a bad one to me at all":
- Insisting that his contributions to the Bobby Fischer article are civil, and that the concerns related to his editing of the EU article are "not something which can be covered in a request for arbitration" because the edits are "trivial", and because he did not edit the article itself.
- Sarcasm directed at SarekOfVulcan.
- Continuing confrontation with Scjessey.
- Continuing his confrontational approach with Scjessey, saying that all the disruption is caused by him.
- Another "Scjessey the vandal" post.
- Continuing a confrontational attitude, accusing his opponents of "smearing Judases good name".
- "You call yourself an administrator".
- Accusation against Scjessey (Sarek ignored the bulk of your behavior); also accusations of stalking from Dayewalker with no evidence to back it up.
- In short, all of these edits continue to insist that there has been nothing wrong with his conduct, and several of them contain more of the personal attacks which he is being sanctioned for. 194x has received a lot of chances, with plenty of feedback that his behavior is inappropriate. Yet, even after a user conduct RFC was opened about him, he used the EU talkpage to attack them with that the EU "wants our souls and the blood from our veins"; that is not the kind of edit made by someone who wants to change. My view is that Wizardman's proposed decision for a one-year ban is appropriate. Letting 194x continue to edit at this time, even under a mentoring scheme, will lead to more of the same behavior which has caused so much suffering. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if I were to advocate mentoring, which I'm at this point just asking about, it would be with the understanding that a failure to work productively with the mentor would entail an instant ban. The type of mentoring I would offer is one that very few editors are likely to accept; it's true. That's because I would insist on 100% compliance with certain standards: Never making any claim of any kind about other editors, period. Never reverting without obtaining consensus, period. Never flagging in courteous and respectful interaction, period.
Most people would rather be banned than edit that way, it seems. Still I'm happy enough to suggest it as a possible last-chance scenario.
I already know that you don't support this solution, Sjakkalle, so there's no point quoting more diffs at me. The type of mentoring I'm talking about, I would offer to any editor other than a common vandal, because it truly is a last-chance. I would personally throw the banhammer at the first sign of non-cooperation. I'd like to hear feedback from others, if they're interested in commenting. -GTBacchus 12:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mentoring may be a possible option, but it is not very probable. Newyorkbrad's comment is highly illustrative of why it is an unlikely solution. He clearly lays out why lesser sanctions are unlikely to garner support. His comments are also noteworthy because NYB is anything but ban-happy. I cannot speak for the other arbitrators. In my opinion, considering this context, 194x144x90x118 has a heavy burden of proof in convincing us that he would actually be responsive to guidance and work productively under restrictions. --Vassyana (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if I were to advocate mentoring, which I'm at this point just asking about, it would be with the understanding that a failure to work productively with the mentor would entail an instant ban. The type of mentoring I would offer is one that very few editors are likely to accept; it's true. That's because I would insist on 100% compliance with certain standards: Never making any claim of any kind about other editors, period. Never reverting without obtaining consensus, period. Never flagging in courteous and respectful interaction, period.