Misplaced Pages

AE request concerning Pmanderson

I had meant to get back to this AE request, but it slipped my mind. As you have now closed it, I'm leaving a note here instead. As I said at the AE request, I'm commenting as an editor here, not an arbitrator (I'm recused on matters relating to this case). My question concerns the other editors whose restrictions were lifted by that arbitration motion. There were sixteen editors whose restrictions were lifted, of which eight had topic bans relating to the editing of MOS pages ("style and editing guidelines"). I mentioned two of them by name in my comments at the arbitration request, one of whom I had intended to file a separate arbitration enforcement request about (he later struck the comments I mentioned, but in the past I've seen action taken even after people have struck their comments). My question is whether you considered the actions of other editors or were just considering Pmanderson's actions? My other question is if there are concerns about the actions of other editors whose restrictions were recently relaxed, should AE requests be done separately, or all together? If the latter question is better asked at some talk page where other admins who deal with AE requests can see it, which page is now used for those sort of discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I had intended to look into those two issues as well and had honestly forgotten in the couple of days I waited to close. Personally I usually review the subject of an AE report separately, though in complex cases or when other editors behavior is specifically noted, I may do a wider review. In one case, I tracked a group of editors over a certain topic area for 6 months and another administrator used that data to decide on sanctions for several of the parties. So I guess the short answer is - it depends? I certainly don't mind if multiple editors related to the same case are grouped together; I've seen it done from time to time so while its not common, I believe its an accepted practice. Its a bit more difficult to pick out comments like yours that end up in the middle of the discussion - I don't know if we could consider changing the standard procedure a bit to allow later additions to the header so additional editors aren't overlooked? I'm sure there's a way it could be worked out. As far as discussion of procedure and things that go on at AE, since the split of the ArbCom pages, I'm not really sure how that works; I tend to use the talk pages of the few admins that tend to work there when I need to discuss things. Shell 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me; should I choose to appeal this, what would be the procedure? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. As I understand it, requests for appeals or changes are handled through ArbCom's request for amendments. Shell 12:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The complaints against me fall into two classes: those who attacked my comments about posts, in order to win a content dispute (I have not even been interested enough to comment on it for a couple days before your note to me), and one complaint arising from the arbitration case below, in which you are involved. The first class was behaving as badly as I was, if not worse; but I would prefer not to trouble with an AE myself. I therefore request either that you do consider the edits of Ohconfucius, for example, or that you reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed Carcharoth's comments on the AE report but thankfully he reminded me of them. His specific concern was in regards to the conduct of Ohconfucius and GregL, whom I am reviewing to determine if a similar widening of the restriction or a separate prohibition would be appropriate. If I've missed someone from the case that you feel also returned to problematic behavior, you're welcome to drop me a note here rather than write up a full AE report.

As a side note since you seem concerned, my involvement in the case listed below extends only to my formal mediation of the earlier dispute on the Catholic Church article, so my inclusion is a bit baffling. Shell 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be some question whether the mediation exceeded the task set out for it. What you (or Sunray) had to do with this is unclear without seeing what happened. This article does remind me of the Macedonia problems; the same intensely focused editors with (in this case) Ultramontane religious and political views.

Please also pay some attention to Andy Walsh and Noetica; they showed great energy in getting me barred from a discussion when my disagreement was inconvenient, as here; in the section above that one, you should find comments from Noetica on my posts as least as uncordial as mine on Noetica's.

I would not have expected any of this to lead to a ban in either direction, and I would be perfectly happy to stay away voluntarily for some time; but I went back because my opinion was asked, and if my opinion is asked a couple months from now, I would like to be able to answer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that the naming issue is a difficult one with reasonable arguments for both sides. This kind of gray area doesn't seem to be something that Misplaced Pages's current dispute resolution methods handle well. Maybe a larger, more structured community discussion would be helpful in this case as well.

I'm not sure I agree that a mediation can exceed the task set out for it, since the task in all cases, is to provide a structured forum where participants can work towards a consensus. The discussion evolved rather naturally as the participants tried to tackle the heart of the issue that led them to continual disagreements over wording. Unfortunately I haven't kept up to speed with revival of the dispute, so its difficult for me to guess what led to the request for arbitration.

I will take a look there as well; in fact it sounds like it might be helpful to review the case and anyone who's gotten re-involved in the discussions more closely. If there's anything in particular you'd like to call to my attention, feel free to leave notes. Perhaps when looking at the picture as a whole, there might be a way to resolve this without the need for any sort of ban. Shell 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps make clear that Andy Walsh and Noetica are engaged in MOS; only the first paragraph of my last note strayed to the Roman question. Let me know when you reach a decision about review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant to say that I would take a look at Andy Walk and Noetica as well. Looking at that now, the way I wrote it was horrible confusing :) Shell 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've starting looking into these bits and I noticed that neither Andy nor Noetica were parties to the case and thus not subject to any of its restrictions. Shell 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not; my apologies, I should have said so. If you find them worthy of admin attention, however, please do so - obnoxiousness need not be mentioned by ArbCom to be dealt with.

Noetica, however, has been on wiki-hiatus for two weeks, however; so xe is not urgent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For an example of what I should like to do, can I have a waiver to respond to this message with a suggestion on the point at issue? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Hi, in regards to Dilip rajeev's enforcement case , there was no word of admin decisions for over 2 weeks. I'm just wondering if this case is still ongoing. Thanks.--PCPP (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, the bot came and archived it, but as the case hasn't been closed one way or another, I have just unarchived it. Any heads up would be appreciated. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't know the clarification was closed. I didn't want to put sanctions in place until everyone had a chance to clear up what exactly the ArbCom meant to happen in that case. Shell 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

PManderson topic ban

Hi Shell. I am confused as to the status of Mr Anderson's remedy; I had understood that you had imposed a full-topic ban on his participation and discussion of the MoS pages. Tony (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was any confusion. I had re-broadened the ban which had recently been changed via motion; if there is a conflict over this, it would be best to get clarification from ArbCom that they intended re-widening the ban to be an option. However, this is the first I've heard of any protest to my action and its a bit disheartening that Sandstein chose to shoot down your request in that manner rather then bring his concerns to ArbCom or myself. Shell 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFAR

Powergate92 continued to use the page to list other perceived misuses of rollback and has now started a discussion on WP:ANI about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm honestly not terribly familiar with what lead to the Mythdon case; I've only seen the self-destructive behavior after the case was over. Perhaps the best way to handle it would be to acknowledge that some of your rollbacks are border-line cases and consider using a different option (undo maybe?) for cases that aren't clear vandalism. Once you leave others with nothing to complain about, if they continue to search for issues with your behavior, it will become more clear that what they are doing is inappropriate. Since edit histories are open for anyone to review, sometimes people are going to browse through them - they may even decide to call attention to mistakes. Its not flattering, but it is an opportunity to improve and learn from others concerns. Shell 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabrielle Ray and Nelly Power

A new username (User:Wishwynne) is making the same deletions at Gabrielle Ray and I see has also deleted material from Nelly Power without explanation. This is probably the 4th sockpuppet she/he has used. Would you kindly take another look? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)