Revision as of 13:58, 9 March 2010

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Discussion of agenda

Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

Discussion of announcements

Resignation of Fritzpoll

Announcement

Well that sucks. --Conti|✉ 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said. KnightLago (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your volunteer work on Misplaced Pages. Best wishes for you in your new endeavors. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason for this resignation is not announced. This is too early resignationlooks irresponsible.refactored per the angry responses, but which still puzzles me greatly. 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)--Caspian blue 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify that comment with a response. Happy‑melon 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, per HM. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, I voted for him. However, this announcement for the sudden resignation without "any reason" is disappointing. He only has served for ArbCom for one and half month.--Caspian blue 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

May I gently suggest that claiming people are irresponsible with zero knowledge, is best avoided. You have no idea really. Suppose he had someone seriously sick or in difficulty in the family and didn't wish to be public about it, or a major change of work or study. Suppose the workload is greater than non-Arbs know (which it is). I am sure he too is sad and reflected deeply on the decision. You rate him, you trust him, you don't know anything to the contrary, consider assuming it's a responsible decision and offering support. FT2  01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that this is extremely discouraging and comes at a bad time. I am speaking for myself and for what I see is happening on Misplaced Pages. Purely a personal sense of futility and disappointment. —mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Aye, you'll be missed. MBisanz 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• This really does suck :( Sorry to see you go ... - Alison 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Enjoy life outside the madhouse! Take it slowly if your head spins. billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban Appeal Subcommittee membership

Announcement

Motions regarding Herostratus and Viridae

Announcement

• I really cannot see what the Arbcom considers Viridae has done wrong. The Arbcom set a precedent by saying it's right and proper to "act first and question later." If that is the correct procedure, and it's certainly their undisputed view that it is, in instances where an edit may reveal potentially embarrassing information concerning an editor (thus needing to be oversighted), how then, is that any different to a compromised account that may suddenly start to produce personal or embarrassing information? This looked to be a distinct possibility in this instance.  Giano  17:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• I accept my strong admonishment and apologize for my action in mistakenly unblocking myself. I should not have done that. I won't do it again, should the situation arise. Wheel warring is a cancer and must be nipped in the bud. The ArbCom has apparantly decided that this was not an instance of true wheel warring but just a comedy of errors. If so, I agree. I would, if I may, try to comfort Viridae with the admonition to wear proudly all scars bought in the struggle to build Misplaced Pages. If we never made mistakes we would never improve to be better editors and administrators! Herostratus (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We must be reading different announcements.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Was this really worth it? Verbal chat 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, yes, I think it was worth it. It's very unfortunate for those immediatly concerned; they have been sacrificed to the Arbcom's pride and stupidity, but for the rest of us it will be a turning point. No longer will they lightly dismiss previous judgements, precedents and Misplaced Pages rulings in favour of whim of the moment. Hopefully, in future they will deliberate more carefully. However, we do now need a ruling on the "act first, question later" (regarding potentially dangerous jokes) ruling issued by amongst others, Brad and Risker.  Giano  18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can arbs pleaase confirm that in the Viridae motion, the word "administrator" can be read to mean "editor", specifically if an editor (not being an admin) finds themself blocked without warning or discussion, and wishes to point out to the admin involved that Arbcom does not like this kind of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, "administrator" in this case can be (and probably should have) read as "editor". The editor happened to have been an administrator in this case but that is not the cause for the admonishment towards Viridae (though, obvioulsy, no self-unblock could have then taken place otherwise). — Coren  13:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. As a follow up, it may have escaped the committee's notice in the past, but wordings which tend to read as though admins are more valued and better protected than non-admins are divisive and cause ill-feeling. With this in mind, could the Arbs exercise more caution in wording motions, or at least be prepared to revise wording when asked? DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
      • That's trivially done before much voting has taken place, buy I'm sure you can appreciate that changing the wording of a motion after some have already voted is a delicate matter. — Coren  17:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I was trying to delicately suggest that Arbs think a bit more deeply about a motion before they submit it or vote for it - and I think you are able to issue official clarifications aren't you? DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When reading up on this case I couldn't help but think of it as a comedy of errors. Everyone should have had a laugh over the misinterpretation of a very obvious joke and gone off for a beer together. Lighten up, people. (Apologies to the admins caught in the middle of the community's absurd overreaction. I would hope that I'm laughing with you, not at you.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tempted as I am to agree with you Boris, having "a laugh over the misinterpretation of a very obvious joke" is not really the Arbcom way - is it? You must realise that, unlike us, Admins and Arbs are very important people, like Queen Victoria, when their pomp and dignity is compromised - they are not amused.  Giano  23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names

Announcement

Request for pointer to list of admonishment ordering

Hello,

Can someone point me to the list of possible Arbitration Committee scoldings? I think I've seen it before somewhere. I know it has admonished and strongly admonished.

Something like (..., lightly admonished, admonished, strongly admonished, very strongly admonished, lightly reprimanded, reprimanded, strongly reprimanded, very strongly reprimanded, lightly rebuked, rebuked, strongly rebuked, very strongly rebuked, lightly upbraided, upbraided, strongly upbraided, very strongly upbraided, ...)

Thanks, Uncle uncle uncle 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you missed "Wrist-slapped" from your list. Spartaz 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's shorter than you seem to think. We generally go with "reminded", "admonished", or "strongly admonished". Anything lower than a reminder isn't going to get mentioned in a case or motion, and anything more severe than a strong admonishment is going to be a proper sanction; sanctions will often accompany the latter two anyway. Hersfold 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • • (edit conflict) It might sound humourous (although Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article on humor only a redirect), but there really is such a list (I think). I have a memory of seeing one at one time, but a search on Misplaced Pages for wp:admonish brings up over 1000 results (it looks like everyone gets admonished eventually) and I can't find the list of scoldings version. Uncle uncle uncle 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Might I ask why this matters? Regardless of the "level" of admonishment, ignoring such an admonishment by the Committee is a Bad Thing™ most of the time, and can result in anything from topic bans to desysoppings to site bans. Hersfold 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I've actually just been corrected by a colleague by email: The levels of admonishment from the Committee range from "reminded", to "cautioned", "warned", and "admonished", with various adverbs thrown in as needed (strongly, etc.). Desysoppings and bans (proper sanctions) may be applied alongside an admonishment or as a higher grade of sanction (that is, in place of an admonishment). Sorry for the misinformation. Hersfold 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I agree that "ignoring such an admonishment by the Committee is a Bad Thing™ most of the time, and can result in anything from topic bans to desysoppings to site bans." Here is a link to statistics of arbitration requests . Wouldn't it be useful to include the admonishment level? Perhaps it would be revealed that those given a "strong admonishment" are more likely to "behave" than those given a "regular admonishment" or perhaps those given a "strong admonishment" deserved it because they are more likely to be naughty. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion - I still hope someone can point me to the list. Uncle uncle uncle 19:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Ah, but where would something like this user who was "urged, cautioned and admonished" (but none of them strongly) fit into the scale?19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
            • • Casliber clarified that one: "The items under A, B and C are requests, hence "urged" would be the verb, probably with an adverb like "strongly" to qualify it." Uncle uncle uncle 19:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Hmm. It appears that some of the arbitrators were unaware of the scale that other arbitrators treated as conventional wisdom. I certainly didn't realize that this was the conventional order. It's not intuitively obvious that "warned" is less severe than "admonished." At any rate, in the context of the motions, it seems clear that one user was considered more over-the-line than another. Cool Hand Luke 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I think that we all (each arbitrator) have our own scale guided by precedent and tradition. Personally, I will "suggest, recommend, urge and enjoin" things that should be done with various levels of urgency and importance implied, and "remind, caution, warn and admonish" against things that should not have been done with levels of severity implied. — Coren  19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "trouted" for things that shouldn't have been brought to us in the first place.  :-) — Coren  19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why not, in cases like these, simply issue a finding of fact "(some action) was an inappropriate use of admin tools/dispute resolution/e-mail function/user page/whatever."? Why bother arguing over verbs or the ranking of various inappropriate things that do not individually merit further action?--BirgitteSB 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any actual arguing over this, or that there ever was. Uncle expressed some curiosity at the system, and we realized that we don't have a very strict system in the first place, is all.  :-) — Coren  23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • May I suggest my Gruntled system of ascending degrees? It begins with 'gruntled', then 'not quite as gruntled as previously', followed by 'not gruntled' and then the universally familiar 'disgruntled'. It then goes to 'very disgruntled' followed by 'swop your fucking bollocks for your brains and see if anyone notices the difference you piece of shit gruntled'. After that I tend to get sarcastic and a little aggressive, although I find there is rarely situations that needs to go that far - and it sort of skirts WP:CIVIL as well. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • So someone who makes amends and returns to productive editing is then likely to regruntle the committee? — Coren  03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• If anyone is really interested in seeing how consistent ArbCom have been with such wordings, there is a wealth of arbitration case pages that can be searched (though some were blanked) and examples quoted. Some of the various stats pages also list sanctions by type as well, I think, so it is trivially easy to find examples of such wording. Maybe the confusion indicates the level of awareness individual arbitrators have of the history of ArbCom decisions? Though I should say there that I think it is a *good* thing that some arbs aren't able to recite past arbtiration decisions from memory, while others (and those commenting on cases and decisions) can remind people of past decisions and wordings. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight

Announcement

I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for taking this case and coming to what looks like the only reasonable conclusion.  Sandstein  06:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"User:ChildofMidnight is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year/User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only" makes no sense to me. Is he banned altogether for a year and when the year expires, restricted to the named spaces - or is he banned from all parts of Misplaced Pages other than the named spaces for a year? – iridescent 09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The former. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably ought to be spelled out, in that case. I'm more experienced than most in translating Wikipedese to English, and I couldn't understand what was meant by "this remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban". – iridescent 11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably agree, though...it's not Wikipedese by the community's standard - just the reflection of an incredibly pompous ArbCom. I think the parties and the community would relate better to: "This remedy is an additional restriction, to any restrictions that are currently in force, or any restrictions that are enacted in the future. This remedy will remain in force indefinitely." But it's not like I can do or say much when ArbCom "disagrees". Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording could be better. "...is banned for one year. After the ban expires he is permanently restricted..." something like that. The permanent nature of the latter should, I agree, be spelled out. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What a foolish statement to make; or so I thought due to the fact that the community has always emphasised the difference between indefinite and permanent. But now I think it is quite an enlightening statement, and your candour would've been appreciated by ChildofMidnight, given that it reveals the ultimate reality about his future on this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)