Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop
Chilax[edit]
I request that all parties chilax and stop recommending sanctions against each other. Maybe even strike out past requests. The matter in dispute is a disagreement in good faith between administrators. Let's try to clarify the issues and provide guidance for future incidents.
As for Sadi Carnot, Physchim62 and I have already agreed how to resolve that (mentorship/probation/topic ban or something like that). At most, we just need Arbcom to confirm that his editing needs to be monitored and carefully inspected if he is going to return.- Jehochman Talk 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Issues involving Kww and Hkhenson should be left for the community to handle. Let's focus on the real issues instead of going off on tangents. - Jehochman Talk 19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly endorse Jehochoman's general points above. I do disagree with ignoring the evidence that Hkhenson, who is in part an instigator of this fracas is similarly as guilty as Sadi Carnot who is on the receiving end of this of POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources as well as self-promotion. This is especially important since the remaining issues revolve around over reaction and undue favoritism on both sides. I think both Hkhenson and Sadi Carnot have been quite successful in gaining the undue confidence of administrators and other editors, at times including myself. I understand better why there was such as major disconnect between Jehochman and P62 when I see that Sadi was a prolific and very good editor in many namespaces and that Hkhenson has built an image of authority based on legitimate looking publications.--Nick Y. 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sadi's editing has been thoroughly investigated by the community. Hkhenson and Kww have not received similar review. If there are further problems from either editor, I suggest running them through our normal dispute resolution or incident handling process. Should those processes fail to resolve the situation, they can be taken up as separate ArbCom cases. I think if we tackle too many issues here, this case will get bogged down. I am keenly aware of this possibility because the last case I participated in, COFS, dragged on for almost six months. I don't think it would be fair to the parties for that to happen again. - Jehochman Talk 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well I think I have completed my proposals for the workshop if that helps to add clarity. I still have to reply to some of the allegations made against me, but I think that all parties can pretty much guess what I'm going to say ;) In case anyone hasn't noticed, the case has moved to the "Proposed decision" stage in any case. Physchim62 (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly endorse Jehochoman's general points above. I do disagree with ignoring the evidence that Hkhenson, who is in part an instigator of this fracas is similarly as guilty as Sadi Carnot who is on the receiving end of this of POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources as well as self-promotion. This is especially important since the remaining issues revolve around over reaction and undue favoritism on both sides. I think both Hkhenson and Sadi Carnot have been quite successful in gaining the undue confidence of administrators and other editors, at times including myself. I understand better why there was such as major disconnect between Jehochman and P62 when I see that Sadi was a prolific and very good editor in many namespaces and that Hkhenson has built an image of authority based on legitimate looking publications.--Nick Y. 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)