Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 16 July 2014

Advice on informing others

I know that if you mention somebody at ANI you're supposed to inform them. I'm guessing the same is true of ArbCom. Is there a standard notification template to do this? If so, where is it mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am thrilled to be able to answer a question from you, considering the scores of questions you have thoughtfully answered for me in the past. There may be a better way to present the information you are seeking, it is at first, slightly obscure. Nevertheless, on the main page, within the reddish instruction box, click on "Click here for instructions on submitting a case request" and it will expand into more information, including the specific template you are asking about. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted {{subst:arbcom notice}} but I got the impression that it was for notifying the defendant(s), not for those only tangentially involved. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It does seem tailored for "parties to a case". An additional parameter seems to be missing, in my opinion. I'd love to tighten it up a bit.—John Cline (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A test case modification

Considering Redrose64's observation, I have worked up a simple modification that accommodates notification for persons mentioned in a case, but not listed as a party. If the Committee would please review the test case @ {{Arbcom notice/testcases}} and voice any objections that may arise, I would appreciate the feedback. Additionally, if better ideas emerge, I am happy yielding to the better way. Also, I am willing to edit the main template and update its documentation without qualm, or observe its implementation by another. I am equally fine if the suggestion is rejected, though I believe in has merit. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither an admin or an arbitrator, but should the "recently filed" be left out for mentions? I.E. "You have been mentioned in a request for arbitration..." I can see someone being mentioned after a case started being more likely than a party being added late. PaleAqua (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, "recently filed" would never be at odds with a matter at the "request for arbitration" phase, for they are generally accepted or declined within such a frame of time. Your comment does allude another point however, that being a person mentioned after a case has started. I will include a switch that changes the current verbiage of a "request for arbitration" when #ifexist: shows a case page does exist, it can change to something akin to "you have been mentioned in a case before the Arbitration Committee". I think that is a prudent consideration, and I'll incorporate it into the testcase directly. Thank you for your feedback.—John Cline (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have primarily completed this task. I further modified it to accommodate requests for clarification and amendment requests as well. I will continue testing various substitutions and in the absence of a decry not to proceed, I will begin updating its live debut within a few days. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Liberté

I am expected to appeal my restrictions in the Infoboxes case, so said Nikkimaria who seems to follow me everywhere. I will not meet the expectation. I came to like my restrictions so much that I decided that I can live and die with them (look for red on my user page). Sometimes I walk away after two comments to a discussion even if I don't have to. It saves time. - I try to stick to the restriction of not adding an infobox to an article that I didn't create, however sometimes I remember the work I put into an article so well that I forget that I didn't "create" it, for example Victor Bruns, Polish Requiem, Richard Adeney, - apologies. - Can we perhaps invent a template explaining for our readers: "This composition by Penderecki has no infobox - as other of his compositions - because the main contributor is restricted"?

On Canadian Independence Day, Nikkimaria made an edit that I didn't understand, out of the blue collapsing three items of information in a long established infobox and removing details. I don't know why. It's one of these discussions where I walked away. Is that the expected behaviour with a "level of professionalism" mentioned in the decision? - Dreaming of a bit more egalité, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, knowing when to walk away is one of the skills to learn if one wishes to edit with a "level of professionalism", especially if one constantly edits in and around contentious areas.

Personally, I rarely edit in contentious areas, but I also carefully avoid any semblance of professionalism, as is appropriate for an amateur. (In the old days, they used to divide us into Gentlemen and players.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove comments

Can an Admin remove the comments of Collect and Capitalismojo from this AR: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sue Rangell. They appear to be against Decorum as described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. Lightbreather (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Logging AC/DS notices

I was told that, when notifying an editor that discretionary sanctions are in effect, I am supposed to log that notice. Where is that done? Am I supposed to edit the case decision, which I thought was limited after closure to arbs and clerks? I had thought, maybe incorrectly, that the edit filter would do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#2014. Second Quantization (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was also told that I should only notify an editor of discretionary sanctions if there may have been misconduct on their part. Is that correct? If so, that should be clarified, and is not consistent with the wording of the template. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You will notice on the logging page that notifications do not happen very often in a given year. This is because people are generally notified when the person believes there is an issue, and often this is substantiated in the logging itself. Generally the person is expected to use common sense and be uninvolved in the specific dispute. Some administrators claim only they can give notices, this is wrong (unless policy has changed recently), Second Quantization (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

That all sounds about right to me. When exactly to notify has been the subject of some debate, but the primary thing is that an "alert" is only an alert to the fact that they are editing in an area that is subject to DS. It is like a warning sign on a road, there to alert you to the oresence of a hazard. It is explicitly not a judgement on the quality of their contributions. And SQ is right that anyone may alert anyone else (assuming no other restrictions are already in place on them) to the presence of DS. When done properly it should be more like "hey be careful there buddy, there's rocks in the road up ahead" than "hey you drive like an idiot". Some people will take it the wrong way regardless though, that's just human nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)