Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review

Misplaced proposal

Oops. Would somebody move my #5 proposal below the snow-calls for closure of #4? GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already done it, but were your fingers broken stopping you from doing it yourself? SpinningSpark 00:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the 'know-how' to do it, other then delete the proposal & then re-post. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What? Here since 2005, 140,000 edits and you don't now how to do a cut and paste on a page? Jeez. SpinningSpark 00:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Head Count

(as of 25 August)

Normally people don't like head counts for these discussions and indeed closing a discussion like this merely on the basis of bolded "oppose" and "support" statements would be problematic. However with roughly 80 participants it is necessary to set the groundwork for any considered close of the discussion.

Marked as "CB" if the editor expressed a preference that the ban be maintained, regardless of a position on lifting it at some point in the future (e.g. the standard offer).

Marked as "OB" if the editor expressed a preference that the ban be lifted immediately.

Proposal No. 1

• CB: GoodDay
• CB: Ian.thomson
• OB: KonveyorBelt
• CB: MarnetteD
• CB: Hasteur
• OB: StringTheory11
• OB: Nick
• OB: Purplebackpack89
• CB: Robert McClenon
• OB: Salvidrim!
• OB: AndyTheGrump
• CB: Floquenbeam
• CB: Alanscottwalker
• CB: Davey2010
• OB: SlimVirgin
• CB: Cullen328
• CB: Jehochman
• CB: SpinningSpark
• OB: Cas Liber
• CB: Binksternet
• CB: Lord Sjones23
• OB: Everyking
• CB: Jayron32
• CB: Juno
• CB: Diannaa
• CB: Chillum
• OB: Drmies
• OB: Neotarf
• CB: Doc9871
• OB: Epipelagic
• OB: John Cline
• OB: Worm That Turned
• OB: Writegeist
• CB: JohnCD
• CB: BethNaught
• OB: bd2412
• CB: DJSasso
• CB: Kww
• OB: Revent
• CB: Resolute
• OB: Tarc
• OB: Collect
• CB: JoeSperrazza
• OB: Begoon
• CB: DD2K
• OB: Demiurge1000
• CB: Basalisk
• OB: I am One of Many
• OB: Black Kite
• OB: SarekOfVulcan
• OB: SPhilbrick
• CB: Sjakkalle
• CB: Miniapolis
• OB: Italick
• CB: Bbb23
• OB: Lixxx235
• OB: MONGO
• CB: Lankiveil
• CB: Beeblebrox
• OB: John Carter
• CB: VanIsaac
• CB: Glrx
• CB: SuperMarioMan
• CB: Nick-D
• OB: Kudpung
• CB: Nil Einne
• CB: Yngvadottir
• OB: Count Iblis
• OB: Rich Farmbrough
• CB: The Bushranger

Proposal No. 2

Among those not listed for proposal 1, read as roughly supporting or opposing a ban

• OB: Italick
• OB: Vertium
• OB: RWCasinoKid
• CB: Mike V
• CB: Binksternet

Proposal No. 3

This is basically the standard offer (as Chillum notes) and no one expressed a preference here who didn't already express a preference for 1 or 2

Totals

35 editors roughly supporting overturning the ban immediately. 40 editors roughly supporting continuing the ban.

Some breakdowns

Several editors who supported continuing the ban (or were neutral) noted support for extending the standard offer or some period ranging from 4 months to a year, namely: GoodDay, Hasteur, SpinningSpark, Juno, JohnCD, Resolute, DaveDial, Sjakkalle, Miniapolis, Lankiveil, VanIsaac, Nick-D, Yngvadottir, MarnetteD, Chillum, Robert McClenon, Vertium, Joy. If we're counting, that's roughly 20 editors, or about half of the ban supporters.

Among editors opposed to the ban, many also expressed preference for some variation on the standard offer (as a second option), namely: Collect, Neotarf, Kudpung, Lixxx235, Begoon, Rich Farmbrough, RWCasinoKid, KonveyorBelt, .

As I read it, only a few editors expressed a preference that the standard offer not be extended. Protonk (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

When you say "extending the standard offer" I presume you mean "making it available" rather than "making the time-period longer than the normal six months"? JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: I mean making it available. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

comments

Note: My support of standard offer is just that (6 months no detectable disruption, a understanding of why they were banned, no reasons for opposing a return). I do not support anything shorter than that. Hasteur (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is best to leave the "head counting" to the closers. This is not a vote and due weight needs to be given the the policy based strength of each argument. Chillum 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just here as a reference. In retrospect I should've left this on my text editor, but I wanted to link to it for the close. Protonk (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

On talk pages (and pages that are not the main articlespace) you're supposed to sign your comments. Since you left it without context, I left it "up to whomever is writing this" to give you a tap on the back to remember to sign your comments... Hasteur (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My confusion, the missing signature made me think it was posted by someone else. It seems it was done by a closer. Oops. Chillum 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is my name marked as supporting immediate lifting of the ban? As far as I recall I at no stage proposed that. Doesn't say much for the accuracy of this count. SpinningSpark 16:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Updated. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the !vote page with a link to this tally, asking people to double check that their preferences have been recorded correctly. I hope the closers don't have as much trouble as I did interpreting the comments. For that reason alone, the above tally is useful. —Neotarf (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

KonveyorBelt wanted to overturn the ban. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Sjakkalle: updated. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Protonk With respect, but I think that the "You misinterperted me" statement should come from Konveyor Belt so as to ensure that the intended meaning of the user is determined by the user. Resigning to get ping to Konveyor Belt registered Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to have their input on it, but I think this was a case of my misreading their 12 month adminship restriction as a similar to comments left by other editors looking to have the ban overturned after a fixed period of time. Also, as I noted below, the count is here to make sure I didn't miss an obvious consensus either way. That doesn't excuse or make immaterial errors in tabulation, but just pointing it out. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to the closers

The care that is being taken with this matter is greatly appreciated.

It might help to clarify with Proposal #2 that a number of individuals supported lifting the ban at a specific point, time frame, or date in the future. One of the problems with the original ban is that it didn't tell Kumioko what he had to do to get unbanned. The basic instruction he was given in the close was to ping the person he had had the dispute with in the first place. That is certainly quite irregular. This left him with no avenue of appeal, since it is common wisdom that these emails go unanswered, and since he was blocked/banned from submitting his own appeal on AN. It would be greatly helpful if whatever outcome is reached here is something that will be implemented automatically, without Kumioko being expected to jump through a lot of hoops in the future that no one understands. In other words, to close this in a way that stays closed. —Neotarf (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• As I said above, this is an attempt to get a rough sense of where people are coming from. There are roughly 80 participants to the discussion, so counting heads is a good way for me to make sure I'm not missing an obvious outcome (i.e. everyone supports lifting the ban or not). The Land and I have discussed a longer close which will of course address the policy based arguments and the somewhat unique circumstances of this appeal. That should be forthcoming shortly. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated. —Neotarf (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed, thanks to the closers, and to Protonk for a very excellent, well written, and thorough synopsis of the thought process. It was so well written, I didn't even feel like it went to TLDR territory, despite its length. Obviously well thought out, and showed the wisdom of Solomon in coming up with this close. Well done. --Jayron32 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed. Thank you both. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that was well closed. Chillum 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Closing this thread was a massive undertaking. Sincere thanks to both Protonk and The Land for volunteering to do it, and making a very well thought out rationale in reading the consensus here and arriving at a conclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The system here can work when the people involved are capable and do the best they can. The closers have more than demonstrated their capability in a very difficult matter and deserve our heartfelt thanks for their ability and their willingness to take on a very difficult job. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with these sentiments and thank the closers. Beyond that the tone of the review itself, apart from a couple of wobbles, was exemplary and encouraging. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• I add my thanks to everyone else's. The close was a breath of fresh air in its willingness to engage the underlying issues directly, instead of getting caught up in the wikilawyering coming from all directions. It was almost "transcendent" and it gives me a breath of optimism about the project as a whole slowly regaining some of its senses. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Footnote

It's ironic that this has closed with a variant of the standard offer, which BASC offered to Kumioko on 29 March.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It took K. this long to reach the "bargaining" phase of the Kübler-Ross model. I'm glad he was able to reach an agreement once he got there. We all have to process these types of events on our own timetables. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, can someone turn off the edit filter that prevented me from typing his old username in the above post? 50.0.205.237 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Turned the K. filters off. Hope they can stay that way. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a comment/request about the edit filters on Reguyla talk page, if it hasn't been seen already. —Neotarf (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Roger Davies: Ironic or not, I don't think this is the most helpful time or place to leave this comment. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko has responded to Roger Davies' comment on his talk page, basically denying that Arbcom made any offer. —Neotarf (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The real irony is that there is an edit filter that prevents an IP from typing the word "abuse". —Neotarf (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see that Kumioko/Reguyla's user-talkpage is being left unblocked, so he can use it to comment on his ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)