Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Workshop comments

Greetings Arbitration commitee members. Following User:Tony Sidaway's example and suggestions I have copied over a couple of sections from this proposed decision and added commentary that I would kindly request commitee members take into consideration relative to this proposed decision. Please find my commentary in this section and this section. Please inform me here if I need to make a motion to have the proposed decision re-evaluated relative to my commentary if such is required for protocol. Thank you. Netscott 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the interests of balance

Please forgive my intervention if it is inappropriate. I am a user of Wikipedia.

I do not expect subject matter experts to always agree with each other and I expect contentious issues to attract a wide range of opinions. But please remember who WP is aimed at – it is not just for self-interested contributors.

My point is that I believe that trust is most important. If, as has been stated, a trusted member with particular and special powers available to him, abuses those powers to modify and delete content with which he disagrees (overriding rules that are there to protect the integrity of this project), that offence is by far the most serious of all. Where an administrator is found guilty of such abuse a lifetime ban on administration powers is called for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.73.163.108 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting view but sadly not relevant to this case. I have never edited Peter Tatchell during the time it was protected. David | Talk 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overtaken by events

Readers not directly involved with this case may wish to know that myself and Irishpunktom have reached a voluntary agreement of our own which overtakes this case, and therefore most aspects of this proposed decision will be withdrawn by the Arbitration Committee. David | Talk 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Readers not directly involved might also wonder why you did not reach a voluntary agreement before you both broke the rules.
They might also wonder, as I do, whether you are not being a tad presumptuous in stating that "most aspects of the case" (by which I assume the removal or curtailment of your Administrator rights) will be withdrawn by the Arbitration Committee.
You have, as far as I can see, been found in breach of various rules and the only remaining issue appears to the handing down of an appropriate sanction against the parties concerned.
How does a "voluntary agreement" nullify the need for appropriate measures against flagrant rule breakers? Where is the deterrent for other would be rule abusers if you receive no punishment for your inappropriate and disruptive behaviour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.23 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 July 2006
Delighted as I might be to engage in a long discussion about this issue, I would prefer to do so on the basis of knowledge of whom I was addressing. David | Talk 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone from your neck of the woods it seems dave. --Irishpunktom\talk 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Admins are discussing here whether they will be enforcing Remedy 7.3.1, "Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year" with respect to Dbiv. Admin and ArbCom clerk Tony Sidaway has, in fact, said outright that he would "stop trying to enforce this remedy", saying that Ignore all rules applies here. [1] Is non-enforcement optional or dependent on the quality of the edits, or is this a bright-line ruling? --Calton | Talk 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion, made as a Wikipedia editor. My role as an arbitration committee clerk means that sometimes things I say may be misinterpreted, and I apologise for unintentionally misleading anybody into thinking that my opinion is worth more than anybody else's. I only meant (and I said as much) that I had decided that I myself would cease attempting to enforce the remedy. I object to no other administrator who enforces it and I will take no action to challenge enforcement (I also said as much). As far as I'm concerned this remedy is a fully enforceable arbitration ruling, equal to any other arbitration ruling in its legitimacy. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If there is no trouble, I really don't care either. Fred Bauder 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)