Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Proposed decision

Others?
(1) It was stated/confirmed that all involved editor behaviour was to be examined. It is being proposed as a final decision that multiple editors (aka 'others') acted in a manner detrimental to the encyclopedia. Nearly all of these 'others' are administrators. Why are sanctions imposed on those who should have the experience and responsibility to enforce policy lighter than that imposed on a relatively new editor who was attempting to follow policy (i.e., removing WP:OR/V violations, confirmed correct by moderation)?

(2) Why are the 'others' remaining unnamed? It's not impossible to figure out who the 'opposing editors' are; they were listed. This has gone, as I feared it would, from an examination of the behaviour of all parties to the frying of one editor.

(3) Opposing editors warned - The banning of Agapetos angel and her meat and sock puppets - suspected, not proven. I object to this characterisation as fact, especially when I have offered proof that they were not sock/meat puppets (like DennisF, who oppposed me enough to file an RfC on Answers in Genesis; was check user even performed? The last one I saw was dropped.) - should not be interpreted as a license to make a hatchet job of the affected articles - this is a toothless remedy if the 'others' are not also banned from editing those articles, especially if the discovery as written is passed with the editors in question unnamed.

Thank you agapetos_angel 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see
This new addition on Workshop regarding comments from Jimbo. This is very important in this case and should be reviewed before any further voting. Thank you agapetos_angel 14:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you please clarify the relevance? This is not news. This has been WP policy, virtually from the beginning. Three pillars are WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. I am not certain what your point is? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, KillerChihuahua. I'm sorry you don't understand the relevance of WP:BLP (I assumed as much after seeing your unrelated response on Jimbo's talk page).  As this is the talk for ArbCom's proposed decision section, I'm sure you will understand that my comments were not intended for debate here, but addressed to ArbCom directly. agapetos_angel 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A comment from William M. Connolley
Hello arbitrators. I'm not sure if this is welcome or appropriate, but I wanted to make a comment on this case, based partly on watching it somewhat and also on a relation I perceive to my own case Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2, specifically item 2.1 that came from the earlier case, if you memories go that far back...

Anyway, the point I was going to make is that I think you are going too much for symmetry in your judgement, in your cautionning etc of Dunc, Guettarda and so on (disclaimer: they are my friends, even if Dunc *has* nasty things about my biog).

William M. Connolley 20:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not about symmetry. It's possible to have a situation where there is one user edit warring against the world, and it's possible to have a situation where there are a select number of users edit warring. This case is the latter. And edit warring is just never okay. Dmcdevit·t 00:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I didn't really expect a reply (so thanks for doing so), and I certainly don't want to start a discussion on this - you have enough to do. I only wanted to give my opinion, and I can respect yours, even if I don't fully agree with it. William M. Connolley 09:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rollbacks

 * 'Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary.' Administrators
 * 'If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, be sure to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.' Revert

(and the not-yet-implimented, but obviously needed: Requests_for_rollback_privileges) agapetos_angel 09:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, note this edit, where again Duncharris reverts without checking that the material he reverted were copyedits and he reintroduces errors into the article. agapetos_angel 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)