Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Jtkiefer

Moved from Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop to Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Jtkiefer during refactoring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Motion to add User:Jtkiefer to the listed defendants
1) I am proposing that Jtkiefer be added to the case as a nominal defendant since even though the general string of behavior and such does not involve me much of this debate will undoubtedly will fall in regards to my actions as an administrator in closing the Checkerboard nightmare AFD and the ensuing debate regarding it's closing both on Wikipedia and on Websnark as can be seen by the evidence already presented on the evidence page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Indeed, this isn't a court of law. If you see problematic behavior surrounding this issue by someone not named, add it to the evidence and it will be given appropriate consideration. I don't think Jtkiefer's peropheral involvement warrants adding him to the listed defendants. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To comment on Lar's comment: I do not believe that the ArbCom should review particular adminstrative decisions to close AfDs except for gross abuse of discretion, and even that is really unnecessary given that there is a more appropriate venue for such review anyway. Please do not expect this case to become a review of individual deletion decisions. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't actually see this as necessary - while I think you discounted some votes incorrectly, I see no problems at all in your close as a whole, and certainly don't have any claims I intend to make about it. Unless someone else wants to argue that the close was improper, I don't think it's at issue. Phil Sandifer 22:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, just wanted to bring it up though since from the evidence page it seems that the Checkerboard Nightmare AFD is a part of the issue. When I get the chance I'll be adding the discussions on my talk page regarding it as part of the evidence.  Jtkiefer T  22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Defendants? Is this then a court of law?  I don't think so.  Add whoever you like, the arbitrators will no doubt make their own decisions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * no it isn't a court of law but in many ways it resembles one and many people treat it as it is one. Jtkiefer T  21:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I remain concerned that Jtkiefer:
 * disregarded the input/votes of some people incorrectly, and could not or would not answer what the cutoff or threshold was
 * could not remember why he discounted some votes (such as my own, a user who I think clearly is not a meatpuppet, although I am not a heavy user) when repeatedly asked about it
 * used strikeouts, which carry a strong negative connotation to some, as a notational device, potentially leaving a bad impression with future readers and potential editors.
 * and I remain concerned that a bad precedent might be set for future admins by some of those things, I nevertheless do not think Jtkiefer ought to be a "defendant"... he's just the admin who was dutiful enough (or unlucky enough) to be the one that had to try to make the best of a bad job, and count votes and determine consensus. I do not think he acted in bad faith. ++Lar 21:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions go read my archives (they're linked to both from my talk page and from the evidence page of this case). I answered why I used strikeouts including stating that I would try not to in the future, I explained all the discounts that I could including going back and re-evaluating each discount despite the fact that I could not recall why I discarded some of them which is understandable when you remember that I closed a lot of AFD's that day and I don't remember eveyr vote from every AFD I've ever closed.  Jtkiefer T  00:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I consider the matter resolved, other than that I think you were unfairly (through no fault of your own) influenced by the actions of Aaron and to a lesser extent, others. ++Lar 03:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Responding to Kelly Martin: I agree with what you say above regarding appropriate scope of this case not including admin decisions. I also agree with those saying elsewhere that this case is not, and should not be, about the deletion process. But I would like to clarify that my points about striking and discounting are trying to assert that Jtkiefer may have been unduly and unfairly influenced by Aaron's behaviour during the AfD discussion... he can't remember why he discounted my vote/comment and that of others, even after examining them again. I think at this remove that is totally understandable (although I was hotter about it on Jtkiefer's talk page, which is regrettable, and I apologise again for any potential incivility). The point is the potential undue influence by Aaron, and its inappropriateness, not the result of it. Hope that helps. ++Lar 03:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)