Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/Arbitration report

← Back to Arbitration report

Discuss this story

• Odd that my rather short comment needed to be [...]'d. The complete quote adds what I consider to be useful context, and was as follows: "That was a controversial tagging, which was edit warred over last month. It had died down and was quiet for quite a while, and then someone re-added it just to cause more drama. An arb or CU is still able to tag it if they think there’s a benefit to that. But now no more drive by shit stirring can happen." [1] --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, Floquenbeam. Thank you for assuming good faith and asking me about my edit when you had an issue with it. I certainly appreciate your candor in your apt descriptions of the issue at hand in your edit summaries. Your efforts to protect the wiki are certainly appreciated. For what it's worth, I had the exact same thought that GoodDay had when I replaced the tag on the page, which I thought I adequately explained in my edit summary in the first place. The banning policy clearly states Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. We need to stop putting unblockables on a pedestal. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, the tagging should be re-added to Eric Corbett's page & then protected. I had an indef tag on my userpage for the 13-months I was banned. I was against EC's banning, but he is currently banned & so he (like myself & others were before) should have his userpage so tagged. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Why does "This case is further complicated by reports in Haaretz and other news sources that Icewhiz was responsible for the exposure of a 15 year old hoax on Wikipedia about a fake Nazi extermination camp." make things more complicated? It's not like he was blocked for a lack of competence, indeed he had massive pluses and was a significant benefit to me when I joined the Community. It's the off-wiki negatives that led to ARBCOM's action, not a weighing of positives vs negatives. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Collins dictionary says "complicated" means "difficult to analyze, understand, explain, etc." I find that fitting for this personality and the many stories related to them. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think it should have been possible to include 'Bureacrat' among the rights that DeltaQuad requested to be removed. As one of the hardest rights to obtain, it would have been worth a mention, particularly where Amanda only passed RfB barely 8 month ago. She will be missed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is implicitly mentioned as part of other advanced permissions including oversighter, although that is indeed somewhat vague. It may have been written that way because she requested desysop on enwiki, and the removal of everything else (including crat) on Meta, so there are two diffs and two explanations for each request. Perhaps the links to the diffs should mention that one was made on enwiki and the other on Meta, rather than both saying "at her own request". —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)