Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:48, 26 September 2011

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Issues relating to administrators

Hmm... the matter with the Magog the Ogre has not been raised by the arbitrators . I felt there are compelling evidence about his recent conduct and the way he slander other parties in this ArbCom case. Since the ArbCom does not even intend to "advise" or "remind" him of his actions, I suppose the take home message is that he did nothing wrong even after all the personal attacks he threw and the permanent ban proposals he made?

Since he has taken up the role of the supervising administrators, it's troubling that his misconduct is overlooked. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In analyzing the evidence provided on the evidence page, I found the allegations against Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian pretty unconvincing. As far as I can see, the main argument against Magog is that he once unfairly blocked one party and not another, which if correct, would indeed be misuse of the tools, but a single misuse doesn't justify desysopping, perhaps not even a mention. Most of the other evidence seems to come down to "he wasn't nice to me/someone on my side" or "he disagreed with my content position". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not desysop is an appropriate measure is another question, but his general attitude towards his critics is something I consider to be problematic. An example would be this where he'd use all sorts of libels and personal attacks on others even though his critics were obviously justified in their scrutiny of his decisions. He then proceeded to propose a block on a rule-abiding party whose only fault appeared to be having a role in criticizing his decisions . I thought this is pretty ironic, since this ArbCom case is mostly about incivility and admins are generally expected to adhere to higher standards of user conduct. Or maybe I am simply suffering from insanity and that all that I thought to be inappropriate is, in fact, perfectly appropriate. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely nonplussed about the concerns over the admins who tried to help, and they were attacked repeatedly by each sides whenever a decision didnt go their way. When you wear out multiple admins who started as neutral admins, the problem isn't the admins. John Vandenberg 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How was he even attacked? The whole ordeal with him was civil until he decided to accuse other people of trolling. These two threads constitute the bulk of the recent interactions with him outside of ArbCom . --Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussions that followed Magog not blocking Tenmei we're full of thinly veiled jabs which kept escalating until, and including during, this arbcom case. I personally don't like the use of the word "troll" on Misplaced Pages, however I looked at when it was used and I can appreciate why they believed they were being trolled; you come across as deliberately trying to provoke, which is incivil. The blocks were not a significant contributor to the problems with these articles. John Vandenberg 23:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, to be very blunt, we expect parties to "slander" each other on the ArbCom pages. Bad behaviour on arbitration pages is par for the course, and we ignore the vast majority of it. The arbitration case is a space to openly explain the problems prior to arbitration, and an arbitration decision should refer to actions made prior to the arbitration case being accepted. John Vandenberg 23:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Research issue

In the respectful Arbitrators "Proposed final decision/Proposed principles/Purpose of Misplaced Pages", it is clearly stated "Use of the site for other purposes, such as ..., ..., publishing or promoting original research, and ..., is prohibited." But I am surprised that user Qwyrxian's (and user Oda Mari's) using or promoting original research resulting in preventing consensus in edit of the related page was not mentioned at all. Why? --Lvhis (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the policies for talk page are not as strict in regards to original research and POV, as consensus comes from people providing their opinions on the talk page. WP:OR is violated when a person adds original research into content pages, however a person can be sanctioned for belligerently pushing their own opinion in talk discussions when it disrupts the consensus process. (sometimes called stonewalling). In this dispute, there were only a few parties involved in the process, and most of them prevented consensus using different methods. ArbCom isnt going to decide who was right and wrong on the content. The proposed decision will remove the most problematic contributions from the topic, and the proposed discretionary sanctions will mean this topic will be subject to the organised complaint management system of Arbitration enforcement, where uninvolved admins review problems carefully. It is our hope that with these remedies, and better administrative oversight, the level of discourse on the talk page will improve. John Vandenberg 11:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, for what it's worth, that a couple of additional editors, who had engaged in some edit-warring and page-move warring, probably should have been topic banned. The discretionary sanctions, however, should hopefully deal with it if any of them repeat the behavior. I hope that the Senkaku Islands article can be unlocked soon. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this chart appears to do a fairly good job at identifying the individuals who have caused the most trouble. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That chart merely identifies who praised/blamed who during Arbitration itself; it provides no explanation for who actually caused problems with the articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point I agree with Qwyrxian. The term "praised/blamed" in that chart for brief illustration sometimes cannot precisely describe the actual meaning of some parties opinion. E.g. "agreed on certain party's some comments" does have some difference from "praised certain party". --Lvhis (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John Vandenberg for your reply and explanation, though what I hoped was more than this. I thought user's motivation should have not dug out, or such digging had at least not been encouraged. Now it seems I was not correct. If digging out user's motivation is allowed in an Arbitration process, I would have also dug out some user's motivation for impeding consensus. --Lvhis (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)