Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 14 April 2008

cs interwiki request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Misplaced Pages (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the ] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Whistles - Clerks needed

User:PHG has been disrupting the arbitration page by posting in other peoples' sections. Please put and end to this, with a block if need be. Jehochman 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't I, when other users routinely respond in other people's section? PHG (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tu quoque (Two wrongs make a right version). Get real. -- Fyslee / talk 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Then, correct the others as well, instead of just correcting me. Rules have to be applied fairly. PHG (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Give it up, we're "wrong". He did this throughout the entire Arb case and argued with the clerks (and they were "wrong" too) when they moved his statements to his section. Shell 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I just checked his user page to see what type of character would use such flimsy and disruptive arguments. I must say that this all makes his impressive contribution history a sham. Too bad that a user with so much experience still acts like a classic newbie disrupter who doesn't understand anything and refuses to meekly accept good advice. -- Fyslee / talk 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Motions page?

Does the committee use the separate motions page anymore? It seems to have been used for two cases in January, and not used since. Over the last few months, I believe a few motions have actually been handled on WP:RFAR itself. If there's no use for this page anymore, perhaps it should be redirected to WP:RFAR in order to avoid confusion. Ral315 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, most motions in closed cases have arisen after someone outside the committee raised a question of clarification or asked for an expansion of the remedies. The motions then come in below the appropriate section of the request. It's not inconceivable that an issue will come up when an arbitrator discovers them, or the committee is alerted privately; in this case the transcluded page for motions would be used. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to move clarifications and motions completely off the RfArb page to the seperate motions page? The main WP:RFArb page can get rather long and confusing at times - having a seperate page would probably help. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Would make sense to me. Easy enough to add another page to the watchlist. --jpgordon 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and moved it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions - it might get reverted, but we'll see. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the move, as I agree that the main RfAr page was getting much too long. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it might make more of the amendments easier to "backburner". As it is the motions tend to get very slow responses from the already overloaded Arbs, and having the motions on an entirely different page might exacerbate this problem. But that's really up to the Committee, as to how they want to organize their workflow. --Elonka 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine follow-up

Just in case this becomes an issue I'll be proactive here. Matt Sanchez, who edited as Bluemarine and is sitebanned from Misplaced Pages, is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. After the en:Misplaced Pages arbitration case closed he accepted my standing offer of mentorship and has been making productive contributions there. He has also made requests about the Matt Sanchez article. At first I advised him about policies and procedures and directed him to OTRS. Due to a lack of response from OTRS and several bright line policy issues at the article I chose to involve myself directly. The article had problems with contributory copyright infringements, negative material sourced to non-notable blogs, etc.

I don't want to cross the line regarding proxy editing so I'm proceeding quite cautiously. At WP:AE I have already disclosed my interaction with Mr. Sanchez. When he requests a change I ask him for reliable sources, explain policies, and evaluate the request. Then I propose reasonable changes to the talk page. If no one objects I implement the change. If someone does object we discuss it, and if no agreement is reached then I seek independent evaluation at a noticeboard. I am not Matt Sanchez's partisan; several months ago I blocked him and I endorsed his siteban. If there is any problem with the approach I'm taking now, please advise. Durova 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me; with the (generally applicable) caveat that by accepting to proxy the edits you take personal responsibility for their contents— in this particular case you seem to be applying careful editorial precautions accordingly. — Coren  15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

<shrug> makes sense to me as well. I keep one eye on that page and think that Durova's doing a reasonable job dealing with it. As long as she's willing to take personal responsibility, I'm okay with it. - Philippe 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to BDJ arbitration

It is acceptable to list at the BDJ arbitration pages the cases where the arbitration case has been directly cited? Is it also acceptable to draw the attention of the arbitrators to cases where the working of an arbitration case remedy "on the ground" is leading to disputes? In other words, point this out without filing a new request, clarification or a post at arbitration enforcement? I would like in particular to point out the following:

• Misplaced Pages:AN#Sigh... (AN thread about the incident that involved a redirect and protection)
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12#Mark Foley scandal (DRV thread - consensus seems overwhelming that something went wrong here)
• Deletion request that cites the arbitration case (specifically principle 4 - summary deletion of BLPs)
• Edit made with summary "office action" (this seems strange and worrying if done intentionally, if it was a mistake, no problem)
• Protection that cites the arbitration case (again, should such actions be listed at the arbitration case pages?)
• An admin said he was thinking of reverting the actions: "I'm half tempted to revert this ASAP because I see no BLP violation here which is implied."
• The user who made the inital request brings desysopping to the table: "Don't. You can get desysopped for doing so."
• At the DRV the following comment was made: "On the upside, summary BLP deletions (or protected redirections, I suppose) of this sort, citing the Bdj RfAr and suggesting that DRV is the proper venue to seek to overturn those deletions, are increasingly seen as inappropriate except in extreme cases, and it may be that the community will soon, as I advocated it do in the wake of the Bdj RfAr, make explicit in BLP that certain principles of that RfAr should not be understood as mandated by or consistent with policy, in order that we address a bit of well-intentioned ArbCom overreach."

I think my question is whether a clarification or other request filed now would save time and effort in the future? Essentially I am looking for brief preliminary guidance from one or more arbitrators, especially in light of the current debate about John254 and people being too quick to file at arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone want to add something to the BDJ case pages, the following seems to have been the upshot of all this: okay, you win, sheesh, sheesh, and Overturned by only person who suggested endorsing deletion (but begrudgingly). The admin actions have been overturned but there has been no response from the admin yet, though one editor has warned the admin in question. This is still a sensitive area, though, so guidance from the arbitration committee might be helpful (or maybe not). Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of case in tendentious terms

This edit by John254 (talk · contribs) is troubling in a couple of respects. First, it includes an edit summary which assumes that his assertion in making the case was valid, based on musing by one arbitrator, yet it entirely ignores another arbitrator's unequivocal comment that I find the request to be distinctly tendentious; there is a minor content dispute and an issue over whether a source is reliable, but there's certainly not the egregious BLP violations claimed. Few if any of those commenting on the case appear to agree with John254's assertion that this is an egregious BLP violation, and most appear to believe that it was another in a series of vexatious cases brought by this user. Second, it's removing a case on which arbitrators were actively deciding. Yes, it was not going to be accepted, but there was at least some chance of a resolution in respect of John's repeated vexatious use of process. Third, one is not, unless one is an ArbCom clerk, supposed to interfere with the statements of others in requested cases - I am as rouge as they come and I would not remove a case or anyone else's comments, I'd simply comment that I withdraw the request. Fourth, by removing the case in this way, no archive or record is made of the case's rejection. I don't know if we even keep records of rejected cases, I'm not much of an arbitration watcher, but it seems to me that the clerks are there for a reason and if you want something quietly nuked because you've made an ass of yourself then you should ask the clerks, who are nice people. In this case, John seems to be asserting the opposite: that everyone but him is the ass. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, sorry, strike that - the edit has been reverted, the sky is no longer falling, and I am over-reacting to trivialities once again. Apologies, all, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. I just hope that wasn't normal service. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In this particular case, I would have reverted the removal had not Nick intervened to do so earlier. The procedures are fairly clear that only clerks (and arbitrators, obviously) should be removing requests from this page, and there is no exception for cases one has initiated: in many cases (and, indeed, in this particular case) there can be counterclaims that other editors have raised that need to be addressed regardless of the initiating party's desire to withdraw their original request. — Coren  15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Very disappointed

I just want to say how disappointed I am to see comments like "It was a bad block" in Arbitrators' comments about whether to accept or reject the case. You should wait until you've actually heard the case before making judgements like that, otherwise what's the point in having the case at all? Just pass summary judgement and be done with it. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it hard to believe that one can come to a decision before reviewing the evidence. Now you may be able to get some context by yourself, but unless both sides have presented what they see as relevant evidence then any such statement is premature. _(1 == 2) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Committee members know how that they intended for discretionary sanctions to be used and want to communicate to Community their thoughts about it, I think. Personally, I never intended for them to be used when an editor removes a comment from their own talk page with a snarly comment in the edit summary. I'm quite concerned that other admins are going to duplicate this approach to enforcing our Committee sanctions and what to nip it in the bud, asap. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other ways of making official general comments on your interpretation of previous rulings. It is inappropriate to do so by passing judgement on a case before hearing it. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, there's no reason to assume they haven't reviewed the same evidence that's available to everyone else. It's not a complicated case and anyone can get a pretty clear picture of events behind the block itself in 5 minutes. If a case is opened, it's not going to be opened to see if the block was bad but to see if sanctions are appropriate and/or there is a pattern of inappropriate use of admin tools. No one is going to open a case to just get Arbs opinion on a block...RxS (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nods in agreement to Rx StrangeLove's comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

People with cases filed against them should still be given a chance to defend themselves before judgement is passed. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango certainly has a point, and it's why if I see a case that I feel definitely should be accepted I will only note my acceptance and not explain reasoning in detail. However where cases are not accepted it is necessary to explain whether what went on was appropriate or inappropriate. A simple statement of 'decline' is liable to be misinterpreted. If an arbitrator declines a case and says that a particular block is bad, the opinion is obiter, as the lawyers would say. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Since a case may be accepted even when a given arbitrator has voted to reject, such comments should be saved until after the case is actually rejected. Not all such comments were even made as part of a rejecting - Matthew Brown was making purely a comment without a vote. --Tango (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have something to say in defense of your actions that you haven't already said elsewhere, by all means, avail yourself of the opportunity. You've made so many statements attempting to defend your actions that it would be odd to think that you're saving the really good stuff for after the arbitration case opens against you. It is hardly unreasonable for arbiters to arrive at and publicly state a preliminary judgment in the face of such overwhelming evidence. This isn't moot court. ➪HiDrNick! 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the phrase "moot court", could you explain? It's really a matter of principle - arbitrators are expected to be impartial. Making such statements before the case (and making them as absolutes, not just statements to current opinion) does not appear the slightest bit impartial. --Tango (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. "Moot court" is a sort of practice court that is held in law schools to help prepare lawyers for the real thing. My point was that our arbiters are volunteers, not judges, and I wouldn't expect them to remain silent on the merits of a case when the evidence is freely available on-wiki. ➪HiDrNick! 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I should have thought of just looking it up on Misplaced Pages! --Tango (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The main RFArb page (where cases are filed) is a public discussion between Arbs and the Community about whether a case is needed because the Community needs assistance dealing with a situation. Often the comments of an arbitrator shortly after the case is filed will differ from those made later because of the feedback of the first arbitrators commenting. If the community adds material that better explains the reason for a case, it is not uncommon for arbitrators to change their votes from reject to accept. Also as events unfold, accepting the case might be the best approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly true, but what does that have to do with anything? --Tango (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If an arb write, ...I think this was a bad block but I rejecting because..., this gives the Community an opportunity to clarify the reason that a case is needed. Censoring their comments as you suggest does not change that fact that arbitrators are forming opinions based on the information presented. This approach is only a problem if the arbitrators are not willing to be open minded as more information is presented during the case. I do not find this to be true, as arbitrators that vote to reject may vote for sanctions later or vice versa. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of it isn't to do with actual impartiality, but rather the perception of impartiality. If it is perceived that the committee has already made its mind up, people will be less willing to take part in the case, particularly if they are on the side that has apparently already lost. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern (as do other arbs) and that is the reason that I'm discussing the issue. If you read comments on our case pages, you see that us and the community regularly struggles with how public our discussions about our cases should be. It is not a simple issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02. You can fight their perception about whether the block was good or bad. That is in the face of the overwhelming comments by both editors, admins and arbiters that it was bad. Tilting at Windmills however is rarely successful. Or you can accept that it was a bad block and apologize to MONGO and absolve SlimVirgin of Wheel Warring. From a pure process standpoint, the question about the block is over. The only question remaining is whether you should be sanctioned or not. You can't unring the bell so MONGO is not going to be reblocked, you are not going to be able to ever block him again or leave warnings on his talk page in any official capacity. From a pure Prisoner's dilemma, your only logical course of action is apology/forgiveness. That will go a long way to healing the wounds created by the block and it would be alearning process in return. Don Quixote wouldn't approve but the community would. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much all of that. Since you haven't stated any reasons for you opinions, I have nothing to respond to, so I'll leave it at that. --Tango (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration: The first stage of the next round of dispute resolution?

So part of this weekend's excitement arises from some these newly-trendy 'discretionary sanctions'. I would like to appeal quite strongly to the committee to stop using these. Let's take a look at the one I just linked. It says, in reasonable summary:

Administrators may block users in accordance with the blocking policy and the prevailing consensus of the community. Such blocks may be appealed via the usual channels (excepting unblock-en?). Administrators may only so block in situations where they have no prior content involvement.

Well, thanks for that: you just stated the standing policy and practise in about ten times as many words as I did. It changes nothing: admins do not need the committee's permission to block for any duration subject to the block finding consensual community support, and the 'appeals' process is empowered to remove, lengthen or shorten any block anyway. The remedy changes and resolves nothing. It constructs no new limits on behavior, and it creates no new tools with which to confine behavior to acceptable limits. In short, it says that editors must behave and administrators are empowered to see that they do. It fails in the committee's responsibility to end disputes, to be the final stage in dispute resolution. Such remedies merely chew the cud and limply hand the dispute back to the community for another iteration - they re-spin the wheel and nothing more. However — and this is important — because the arbitration committee has cleared its throat with respect to a particular editor/article/etc., admins with a little bit of a desire to exercise some 'actual' power take an amplifying effect from the remedy and, sheltering behind the committee's greater authority, over (re)act. Thus, 'discretionary sanctions' light fires under disputes rather than dousing them, and abdicate the committee's responsibility to reach decisions that the community has not been able to. Please stop using them, along with all the other empty platitudes that dominate arbitration outcomes at present. Regards, Splash - tk 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think your summary is a particularly reasonable one, as that's not what the sanction actually says:

The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

(emphasis mine). We are not merely (re-)authorizing people to "block" in accordance with the "blocking policy"; we are authorizing admins to do, quite literally, whatever they feel is necessary, for whatever reason.

Not that you don't have a good point regardless, of course. The discretionary sanctions were, at least in my initial conception of them, an answer to two major weaknesses of the current dispute resolution system:

1. The Committee doesn't rule on content—probably our last major taboo—and yet a significant number of disputes boil down to questions of POV-pushing that are intrinsically tied to content. The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions; but this admittedly comes at a certain cost.
2. Both the preliminary portion of system, and even arbitration itself, is generally incapable of dealing with valuable or popular editors that are acting inappropriately. Normal blocks against such editors tend to be quickly reversed by friendly admins, and the Committee has traditionally been reluctant to sanction them. When I first drafted the original discretionary sanctions proposal, I tried to come up with a system where sanctions were easier to impose than to remove, in order to combat this effect; the original proposal, if I recall correctly, called for summary desysoppings of anyone reversing such sanctions without adequate consensus. Obviously, the text was watered down in the final version, but the general idea remains.

These sanctions are, however, very crude tools, as you point out. It would be much easier to work with a system properly designed for handling these sorts of disputes; but the initiative for major reform must, on some fundamental level, come from the community as a whole rather than exclusively from us. Kirill 17:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)