Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Proposed decision
Arbitrators[edit]
- Arbitrators active on this case
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- Morven
- Charles Matthews
- Dmcdevit
- Raul654
- SimonP
- UninvitedCompany
- FloNight
- Kirill Lokshin
- Jpgordon
- New arbitrators inactive on this case
The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.
- Flcelloguy
- Paul August
- Blnguyen
Questions[edit]
Is this the right place to ask questions about the project page? I have two questions regarding Dmcdevit's comment and vote:
- Re comment
- I don't doubt that he agreed; once the sockpuppet was discovered, it was of no use for him anyway. But where and when did he actually agree? Was that after I proposed an easier solution on his talk page?[1]
- Re vote
- Is Dmcdevit saying that because Deltabeignet agreed with a pointless measure, the whole case should be closed, or am I misunderstanding something? — Sebastian 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've looked at a sample of the IP edits in question, and in my own personal opinion they are not intentionally disruptive, and are mostly content changes that I myself agree with. There seem to be a very small number of edits in which Deltabeignet supported the IP with admin rollback, and there seem to be no instances of more serious abuse of admin tools (blocking or deleting or threatening to do so). Letting the matter die with a promise not to do it again seems more than sufficient. Deltabeignet has agreed to cease his experiment and has agreed to a "soft block" of his IP address to enforce it. The other remedies would be an official warning (which is a lot of heat and noise that doesn't do any more than the current agreement), or editing restrictions (blocks, bans, de-sysopping), which would seem to be vast overkill in this case. Thatcher131 12:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Thatcher131's summary of the situation. It will be important to give Deltabeignet the time and space to show that they are an editor/admin in good standing. Over scrutiny needs to be avoided. FloNight 14:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've looked at a sample of the IP edits in question, and in my own personal opinion they are not intentionally disruptive, and are mostly content changes that I myself agree with. There seem to be a very small number of edits in which Deltabeignet supported the IP with admin rollback, and there seem to be no instances of more serious abuse of admin tools (blocking or deleting or threatening to do so). Letting the matter die with a promise not to do it again seems more than sufficient. Deltabeignet has agreed to cease his experiment and has agreed to a "soft block" of his IP address to enforce it. The other remedies would be an official warning (which is a lot of heat and noise that doesn't do any more than the current agreement), or editing restrictions (blocks, bans, de-sysopping), which would seem to be vast overkill in this case. Thatcher131 12:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for both your replies. I agree that (thanks to Newyorkbrad's investigation!) the suspicion of more serious abuse of admin tools is dropped. I disagree, however, with the assessment of remedies. The "agreement" is no remedy, as I pointed out above. There are not just these two alternatives; please don't discount the remedy I proposed yesterday (#3), which is not punitive, and cleans up the case neatly. — Sebastian 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)