Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Evidence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question of Scope[edit]

Is this case necessarily limited to actions surrounding the deletion of Daniel Brandt, or would evidence of other questionable uses of admin powers by involved parties also be relevant? Dragons flight 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that depend on the immediate relevance? That is, if User:X is mentioned here for wheel-warring, it would be appropriate to say, "User:X also wheel-warred on such-and-such an occasion," but not appropriate to say, "User:X once blocked someone without sufficient cause." Chick Bowen 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that we'll dive too deeply into any other issues, but if other questionable uses of admin powers by some of the involved parties have occured, by all means post them on the evidence page. I can't guarantee that we'll look at all the claims (that is, we're not going to start looking at unrelated disputes), but I would take into account if an administrator has wheel-warred in the past. (In other words, if this case isn't an isolated incident of wheel-warring and abuse, then I would take that into account.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox[edit]

SqueakBox is not named as an involved party. Why is Hipocrite presenting evidence about him? —freak(talk) 00:45, Feb. 24, 2007 (UTC)

I do not know. It should not be here. He is also trying to get Squeakbox banned on the administrator's noticeboard. Proto ► 01:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arbcom can drag anyone they want in. Squeakbox was a disruptive influence throughout. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a wheel war. Squeakbox's existing probations are more than sufficient. Post to WP:AE if you want a calmer review than AN/I. Thatcher131 01:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I allege that without the provocation of someone in the corner going "why don't you and him fight" there might have been no fight. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the admins want to make that their defense, they can. At that point we can see if the arbitrators want to look at Squeakbox. For now I'd rather keep him off the evidence and workshop pages and stick to the wheel war. I really don't see how "Squeakbox made me do it" is much of a defense, and if he was egging people on his prior case provides for remedies. Thatcher131 01:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Squeakbox's contribs, I think he got right close to the edge of the cliff, particularly as his parole "is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith." His last comment was a bit of inappropriate cheerleading at Yanksox's desysopping; if it had gone any farther I would endorse a block, and if indeed goes farther I will block per the previous arbitration case. Disruptive users are on a short leash for a reason, and we don't anyone dancing on anyone else's grave, so to speak. However, it still doesn't have anything to do with this case as such.Thatcher131 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox certainly appeared on my userpage during this. Although his contributions there were not highly helpful, I don't deem them disruptive. Indeed they were quite irrelevant to my involvement with this matter. Of his other related activities, I know nothing. --Docg 11:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Wow... that was complex. It looks like a film storyboard. Perhaps when this is all over, you should make a movie out of it – Qxz 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some very interesting social dynamics on wikipedia on interesting subjects and all available via copyleft copyright for anyone who wants to take a crack at creating a for-profit media product. WAS 4.250 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar occured to me before when I was a moderator a a reasonably popular forum site. The problem with a film is that there are no good visuals. Maybe a book would work better? Eluchil404 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of a meatpuppet at Wikimania 2007 starring Pamala Anderson. She has good visuals. WAS 4.250 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war/Evidence&oldid=1137443160"