User talk:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2015

Comment

Hey Regents - I just wanted to note that my main objection in the thread you linked was just indeffing a user in the middle of an ANI thread about her behavior, when it's pretty typical practice to wait for consensus to develop before doing something like indeffing an established user. Just as an example, tons of people were objecting to blocking Neelix mid-thread despite Neelix's behavior being close to the most inappropriate behavior I've seen from an admin (and FWIW, I know Neelix irl and don't dislike him, so I'm not holding a random grudge against him - it's just a good recent example of people pushing back against the idea of blocking someone without consensus or ongoing extremely disruptive behavior.)

I view it as considerably unfortunate that after 28's initial unblock of her to participate in the ANI thread, further sections of the thread continued to be hijacked by issues other than RO's behavior. Although RO is now OS blocked, emails I received during the course of the thread (which contained confidential information that mean I cannot, by policy, post them publicly, in the same way that HJ couldn't post the reasoning behind his OS block) had me intending to take action of my own accord based on now OS-ed diffs if the behavior had either recurred or the thread had reached no consensus. I definitely wasn't objecting to the idea of actioning RO - I just prefer people are able to actively respond to ANI threads about themselves unless there is continuing unacceptably disruptive behavior coming from them (which I think most would agree with,) and definitely am uncomfortable with the idea of Ched handing out a full indef with as little explanation as he included in the middle of an active ANI thread (as I think the vast majority of active admins would be uncomfortable with.) 04:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My main concern was your conclusion that Giano and Cassianto had hijacked the thread to make it about women and Corbett rather than about RO when, clearly, that had been dragged in by others. The unblocking, reblocking etc. was a secondary concern. I'll take a second look though and thanks for following up. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing got a bit jumbled, but just to be clear, I was objecting to their continued bringing of gender in to sections like this - which should rightfully have been about RO's behavior, once the unblock itself was handled (although as a sidenote I don't think arbitration would've been appropriate, anyway - just that that subsection should've been discussing the idea, not featuring aspersions of some sort of GGTF-mafia that would've hijacked arb proceedings.) I do acknowledge readily that it I was I (among others) who brought gender in to the thread initially in the context of the block discussion, which I did just because indeffing someone partway through an ANI thread who self-identifies as a woman while we regularly don't do the same thing to people who identify as men (as demonstrated by Neelix) seemed like a pretty clear double standard. Once 28 unblocked RO, I would've preferred gender to have been pretty much absent from the rest of the thread, so that it could've been dedicated to discussing RO's actual perceived behavioral issues. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)