Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Rschen7754 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Salvio giuliano (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

IAR

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop#1RR_restriction

Under the 1RR proposal on the workshop page, both Richwales and I were noting about NS's editing practices. Was it necessary for one of us to actually write out a "proposed remedy" for it to be considered? If so, I suppose I can try to do so. But I was hoping to see more discussion on it first. These are patterns of behaviour that would appear to have continued for years. - jc37 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The drafter of the decision uses his or her own discretion about what to include, whether or not it was formally workshopped. Similarly, any arbitrator may add a proposal to the decision if he or she concludes it would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. - jc37 18:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Involved

I agree with NYB about the phrasing. Interestingly, this seems focused only on the blocking of another editor, and not concerning a content dispute (where protection or the closing of a related RFC might be an admin's task). If this is the intent, then this should be made clearer somehow. "...Administrators are usually considered involved with another editor if..." - But even with that, it's still too broad, I think.

Speaking merely for myself, I've closed policy discussions that I think it's fair to say I was uninvolved with, where many fellow Wikipedians have commented, at least some of whom I "have had significant personal interaction with". I think I understand what is trying to be said in (ii), but I think it's too broad as written to be enforceable. And on the converse will open things up to a sort of six degrees of separation wikilawyering.

But concerning the text at hand anyway, I think I'd like to see the word "currently" used in (i). This should be stated in the present tense (with the recent past added). So something like: "...are currently participating or have recently participated in..." maybe? - jc37 18:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Late" evidence

I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the responses I supplied to SilkTork the other day on the workshop page under the "historical background" section as it involves another incident that was not covered in the evidence phase which I believe is very revealing as to NS motivations and supposed knowledge of the involved admin policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Beeblebrox. I have mentioned it on the PD page as it is pertinent. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Office

This may seem a minor thing, but would someone please change the header from "Office of Administrator" to simply "Administrators".

An administrator is a Wikipedian who merely has been entrusted with some additional tools and responsibilities.

We already have too many with the mistaken perception that admins are separate from other Wikipedians. So it would be nice to not reinforce this mistaken perception by calling it an "office" or "post".

We're all Wikipedians here : ) - jc37 16:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• This makes perfect sense; I'll make the change, I don't imagine anyone will disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)