Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

  • Charles Matthews
  • FloNight
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jdforrester
  • Jpgordon
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Morven
  • Mackensen
  • Paul August
  • SimonP
  • UninvitedCompany
Inactive
  • Blnguyen
  • Flcelloguy
  • Neutrality
  • Raul654

[edit] JamesF's new proposals

James, I wonder if it is desirable to have so many different kinds of revert parole. In my travels (and as the main enforcer at arbitration enforcement over the past few months) I have seen terms of

  • limited to one revert per day
  • limited to one revert per week
  • limited to one revert per week and all reverts must be discussed on the talk page
  • limited to one revert per day or 2 per week or 3 per month

Is is beneficial to have so many different kinds of revert parole? Just asking. Also, on the escalation clause, I personally have never gone straight from one week to one year on block #6, but continue on the gradual escalation. Thatcher131 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think it appropriate that the remedy fits the need, yes, but I do agree that too great a plethora of alternatives gives rise to too great a burden, and complexity, in their enforcement.
As to the escalation clause, I'm aware that it is very rare that step-change escalation is used. I want Arbitration enforcement clauses to be a little more honest to reality and fit with how we actually do enforce our various remedies. Again, as with below, this is more "thinking out loud", and input is very welcome!
James F. (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re new proposals

Regarding James' new proposals regarding AzaToth, which I lean toward opposing, arbitrators may be interested in the colloquy between Dmcdevit and me on the Workshop. Regarding James' new proposals regarding E104421, is there any evidence of an ongoing problem in the two months the case has been pending? Newyorkbrad 17:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I have to confess that I was not moved by your arguments on the Workshop - to unblock once is being bold and probably commendable (as you said, no-one would have complained that much had Mediation been sucessful), though the lack of discussion is still a bit unfortunate. It is the second unblock pair over which I have particular concern, as I can't see a particular reason what it had to be AzaToth that unblocked - and, certainly, I can't see why this was done without discussion.
As to the second point, I perhaps didn't state that my solutions were being offered, rather than pushed; I've altered the page accordingly.
James F. (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, I thought that the second pair of unblocks, which were expressly limited at the time to the users participating in dispute resolution, was for purposes of the Mediation. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E104421-Tajik

cross-posted to talk pages, copied to the case's decision talk page

Please note that I'm already under revert parole. In addition, my block log [1] is just reflecting the articles i had factual disagrements with Tajik. (P/s: I posted this message to your talk page cause i'm not sure where to post for the arbitration case) Regards. E104421 12:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know; this was meant more as a codification of said community revert parole into a Committee-enforced parole, to avoid confusion (which has happeend before). However, I was unsure that it's needed, but thought that I should offer it to the Committee; I have accordingly changed my vote on these items to better reflect this.
James F. (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

It appears that Tajik is evading his block and using socks to edit Safavid dynasty. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik. Grandmaster 07:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)