| Revision as of 00:32, 4 March 2005 editSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits Code of conduct for administrators← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:02, 9 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (194 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{aan}} | |||
| See also ], ], ], mailing lists, ] | |||
| == Ed Poor persistently disruptive on Qur'an abuse page -- surrealistically high number of page moves == | |||
| Admin ] ] has executed a ridiculously high number of page moves, and has been generally disruptive, at the page currently titled ]. | |||
| I'm not so good at formulating policy documents, I have to say.<br>] ] 11:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) | |||
| He has obvious political motivations for the pattern of disruption and title confusion he has sown on this page in recent days. (Check out the titles of his edit summaries on this page if you doubt my assessment of this.) Please. please review the history of this page and consider taking appropriate administrative action. ] 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo suggested that we elect a chair, and proceed from there. I'm going to do an email and talk page spam session once I've got the details for it, and see where we get to. It might make sense to get a specialised mailing list eventually - I guess I'll raise a feature request via ]. ] 20:31, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ''Here are examples of what I mean:'' | |||
| at sourceforge. (in case anyone doesn't believe me ;-)) | |||
| FROM TALK PAGE HISTORY | |||
| == Gender issues == | |||
| * (cur) (last) 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (Was it desecration? - That's the anti-US point of view, all right. So let's describe as such.) | |||
| Is it true that all the arbitrators are male? Hum.... ] 03:23, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| FROM ARTICLE HISTORY | |||
| :this is '''so''' typical. ant | |||
| * (cur) (last) 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (moved Pentagon "admission" down to 4th paragraph, as intro to "critics continued belief" - could be moved up) | |||
| What is so typical? That women don't campaign for leadership roles? That more women than men prefer to hide their gender? That women are in the minority on Misplaced Pages? That unfortunate inequities exist? To whom may we direct your complaint, ant?] 22:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| * (cur) (last) 20:06, 27 May 2005 Ed Poor (anti-US POV needs to be labeled. Don't put the argument in the text of the article as if you wanted Misplaced Pages to endorse that reasoning) | |||
| :I think most women on en: are not hidden now; they still are in minority, but that minority is not so low, and I think many of them have a quite proeminent role and influence here. So...all in all, I guess the influence of women in the english wikipedia is quite satisfactory actually :-) However, yes, I think it is quite typical that men find themselves, just as in real life, in the decision making. Why is it so ? Hmmm, in this case, I suppose no women even considered having such a role. The other option is that one asked but was not chosen by Jimbo. Actually, before I made that comment, I really had a big laugh, because before Alex mentionned it, I had not even realised it :-) So, yeah, that was not a complaint, rather a amused reaction :-) | |||
| ''' ''... not to mention the avalanche of page moves, resulting in confusion and perpetual redirect challenges for those trying to actually find the article ...'' ''' | |||
| :this said, I can't help wondering upon which arguments Jimbo decided to put a person here rather than there, and vice versa. I personally think a couple of choices were not so wise. Btw, I regret that you did not propose yourself for mediation. | |||
| :Just bear in mind that the Edit summaries and other references I made to the page title were to the old title of ] (which I moved to ] and which Brandon helpfully tweaked by moving it to ]). ] ] 02:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I don't believe the gender of Gutza, The Cunctator, or UninvitedCompany is publically known, though I could be wrong. I suppose possible concerns might be that this could cause a perceived blind spot in our ability to handle disputes involving accusations of sexism or sexual harrassment, or that it makes us unrepresentative of the larger Misplaced Pages community. As Anthere notes, it is certainly an interesting example of ]s in action. ] 00:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've known Uncle Ed for a good several months, and, on my watch, I can report that all of his decisions, while sometimes dramatic, have been well-thought out and in accord with Misplaced Pages policies.--] 02:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Well, everyone who requested a role got it, so if there are no women on the arbitration committee (which I don't know to be a fact, since I don't know everyone's gender), it's simply because no women asked to be on the arbitration committee. --] 05:14, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Karl Scherer == | |||
| :I volunteered for either committee (but expressed a preference for mediation). I don't know about Angela and Anthere but it's possible that they also said either was OK. So there was at least one woman available, possibly three. That said, I'm not sure whether Jimbo was aware of my gender although it's been mentioned a few times including on the mailing list -- ] 21:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, it has been suggested that ArbCom make a ruling concerning the behaviour of Karl Scherer -] ], who uses IPs | |||
| ::Same here. I also said I would be on either but expressed a preference for mediation. ]] 22:02, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *], and | |||
| *], and | |||
| *], and | |||
| *], and | |||
| *], and | |||
| *], and | |||
| *], and | |||
| *various unknown sockpuppets with edit histories potentially going back 2 years with probably about 200 edits each (assumption based on editing pattern of above IP addresses). | |||
| '''Over 100''' articles (about 200 including the images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see ]). There is also a current VfD at ] concerning an additional 8, and at ] concerning a further two, as well as the related closed VfD at ], and two open ''related'' ones at ] and ]. | |||
| ==Transparency question== | |||
| Since arbitration is final and binding should members know who exactly all the arbitrators are, i.e. their personal biographies and what qualifies them to arbitrate disputes in a final and binding fashion? It only seems fair that someone who is being banned from Misplaced Pages should know who has the authority to do that to them. I am not certain that all the members of the arbitration committee are forthcoming about who they are outside the Misplaced Pages world. ] 13:33, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| It was suggested in one of these VfDs that a formal ruling be made about such forms of original research, which was mixed in with extreme amounts of advertising spam. These articles were created over a 2 year period, and where only discovered when I was apparently more suspicious than others about the motives of an editor (Karl Scherer) whose most recent creation appeared in New Pages. The length of time that these edits were not caught appears to have lead to ] jumping from 602 non-obvious-wikipedia-mirror hits in google to 60,000. Some sort of formal mechanism for discovering such things sooner is probably wanted. ] 4 July 2005 18:33 (UTC) | |||
| == CULTURAL TERRORISM Ongoing on Portuguese section == | |||
| : Hi Alex756, if that is your real name... ;-) | |||
| Please guys, | |||
| : I'm not entirely sure what you're after, but I can give you a quick thumbnail sketch of myself, and see if it's the kind of thing you're looking for. A few of us have issues with publishing certain kinds of personal information on Misplaced Pages, due to privacy and other concerns, so I'm afraid we may have to leave some questions unanswered. Anyway: | |||
| Brazillian activists have taken control over the Portuguese section. They revert anything that isn't written in their own 'version' of Brazillian Portuguese - that no one else in the world uses and is not officially accepted. They eliminate lots of Portuguese (from Portugal, Europe and world) content. They actively ban and persecute users, lie to the superior Wiki managers, and do all censorship possible to avoid contact from Portuguese (and other countries speaking Portuguese) with the rulers of Wiki. As of now they completely hijacked the Portuguese section of Wiki. | |||
| :: "My name is Martin Harper, I am 24, single, army brat. I live in ], and work as a programmer for a large US medical company. I've also worked for a . I have a ] in ] from ]. I enjoy kickboxing, computer games, reading, and travel. For contact details and a photo, see ]." | |||
| For some unexplainable reason instead of creating a BR section for their own special needs, they insist on hijacking, controlling, and reverting everything in the PT section to their own whims. Most non-Brazilian users have no stopped contributing, enjoying and using Wiki - because what's there, IS NOT Portuguese. It's as if Catalan speakers hijacked the Spanish zone and modified it to their own version claiming it was 'Spanish'. | |||
| :: "I've worked on the English Misplaced Pages for fourteen months. Previously I was a 2½ year member of ], where I was once given a for "inappropriate behaviour" - this gives me a broad perspective on "problem" users. I'm interested in the dynamics of online communities, and I'm an active member of ]." | |||
| It should be said, that Brazillian Portuguese is WILDLY different than Portuguese and not simple "minor" changes as they falsely claim! | |||
| : Is that the sort of thing you were after from us? Regards qualifications, the blunt truth is that we qualified by volunteering when Jimbo Wales asked, and he accepted us as volunteers. Of course, none of us would have volunteered if we didn't feel up to it, and I hope the community will feel that our range of experiences qualifies us to do this job for them. ] 00:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I do not know if Brazilians are ashamed of being 'Brazilians' and thus insist on hiding behind the 'Portuguese' mask, i find no other explanation for this bizarre insistance. | |||
| :Alex, I volunteered for the job out of concern for Misplaced Pages and out of a sense of duty since I was one of those clamoring for better ways to resolve disagreements. Misplaced Pages does not have a ] policy for users or sysops, and many users -- including you and many other prominent Wikipedians -- choose not to share many biographical details. If you have concerns about me particularly, let me know at my talk page or contact me via e-mail. ] 00:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Brazillian is totaly different from Portuguese. They use a totally different verb tense. Hundreds of words that mean nothing in Portuguese (nor have any linguistic basis) are used. Incorrect - you'd fail in any Portuguese class in any Portuguese speaking country BUT Brazil - Portuguese is used so frequently it makes most articles WIDLY unreadable. | |||
| : The system as current set up is... not perfect, and perhaps so much not so that people will have a problem with it, in that all of us who have been appointed to the board were done so at the personal discretion of Jimbo, whereas any and all future appointments (including our own re-appointments; mine is at Gregorian year-end) are intended to be based on a vote of some kind, at which point I have no doubt that people will expect those standing to offer a personal manifesto et al.; however, as of now, one does not know that information provided on my vanity domain as linked to from my user page is anything other than a fabrication, and, certainly, if I were so minded, I have little doubt that I could invent such a character background in such a way as to be pretty-much 'fool-proof', so that one would have a very great difficulty in verifying its veracity, and yet being partially or wholly false, and as such I feel that the only reliable (and, indeed, in any way sensible) basis of evidence is the way in which people have comported themselves whilst on the Misplaced Pages (and, I suppose, on the miscellaneous related mailing lists) - evidence which is, if not terribly easy to sift through, certainly available in all of its forms to anyone who wishes to look for it. | |||
| :: Hmm, that was all one sentence. ;-) | |||
| : In short, all we can offer is a past history, goodwill, and hope that we can gain others' trust. | |||
| : Thoughts? | |||
| : ] ] 04:35, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| It's not that they used different versions, i'll explain: They started slowly using wrong grammar versions because the people was very poor, and now, because their government has not control over the country, and educations is extremely lacking, they found it 'cheaper' to just maintain the wild grammar errors. Again, the errors are rampant, not minor, at all. | |||
| I don't think it's necessary to give biographies, or even real names. We're on the committee because Jimbo appointed us there, and that's what gives us the authority, since currently Jimbo has final say on all Wikimedia decision making. In the future we will be elected based on our actions both on the committee and on Misplaced Pages in general; for those voting to decide whether they like our actions, it's sufficient to identify us by our Misplaced Pages usernames. --] 05:15, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Sirs... this is totally affecting our ability to use the section dedicated to our own language...! THEY IMMIDEATELY REVERT, CANCEL, CENSOR any attempt to use Portuguese! | |||
| Anyone who wants to be an arbitrator should be subject to scrutiny because they will be wielding real power against other Wikimedia members that we do not know. Personally, I care about the other members and their rights; they should be treated fairly be individuals who are qualified to judge their behaviors because of their training, their personal background and their history as part of this community. I do not know of any democracy where the judges/arbitrators are anonymous or pseudonymous. | |||
| Entire changes and articles have been already wiped out by them simply because it wasn't in "their" version. | |||
| Regarding my user name I wouold like to state that anyone who has taken the time to read my user page knows that I use a pseudonym not to hide my identity or information about my personal biography (which can be discovered with a minimum of research) but because using a pseudonym shortens the duration of copyright protection before works enter the public domain. See . It is for this reason alone that I adopted a pseudonym to make contributions here. | |||
| The whole editing section is in places UNREADABLE and completely ununderstandable to non-Brazillian Portuguese speakers - ie, all of them all over the world. They use words that mean nothing in Portuguese, in the Wiki UI, people reading it, from Africa, have no idea what it means! | |||
| Thank you Martin for your forthrightness; it is an excellent example for the rest of the group. And thank you to the rest of you in advance for your disclosures on this page so other members are aware of the idenitities of those who have taken it upon themselves to judge others and pass sentence upon them if you have not already done so on your user pages. Remember that I declined to be part of this process because I felt it important that someone remain available to look over the shoulders of the power possessors to protect the rights of those who have not been given such power to effect the course of other people's lives; being a court arbitrator I know that it is a very serious role that can have very serious consequences. ] 05:18, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| This is NOT a 50\50 partnership. ALL main pages have now been reverted to Brazillian only, locked, and reverted no matter what minor change \ comment is done. Most Portuguese, or simply outside of Brazil, users have been coimpletely driven out of Wiki, this can't be right. | |||
| :I disagree with that. I think the only relevant qualification is track record in Misplaced Pages. Track record in real life is irrelevant--there are plenty of esteemed, well-regarded, and tenured professors who have behaved less than excellently on Misplaced Pages, and vice versa. In fact I personally don't bother to read any of this blog-style personal rambling about what people do in real life, and would object strongly to it being taken into account for any purpose whatsoever. | |||
| They've been feeding the impression that Brazillian and Portuguese are as equal as English in the UK and America, THIS IS UTTERLY FALSE! The differences are huge, to the point that ocasionally you can't even understand what they are trying to say \ talking about. | |||
| :I think you are making the whole thing a bit too formal as well. This is not some sort of legal system. We're doing the exact same thing Jimbo has been doing informally for years now, only now it's a group of people instead of just Jimbo doing it. We're the dispute resolution committee of our little club, not some sort of government. Jimbo didn't do it formalistically, and I don't think we should either. The checks and balances are consensus, and voting of people onto the arbitration committee (which ''does'' have to be done somewhat more formally to make sure the elections are meaningful in some way). --] 06:21, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Most weird, is the fact that they seem driven by some internal frustration of the tragedies inside their own country, and are completely using this as some strange form of Nationalistic rabidly jingoistic movement to assert themselves. They are now publishing articles of political activism about Brazilian Nationalism as if they were Wiki definitions... 8O | |||
| :: Agreed, it does seem to be getting rather overly formal. | |||
| :: ] ] 07:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I do not whish in any way that they don't use their own version. But right now they are stopping us from using ours. Heck, we are the ones which are Portuguese and i can't even understand some of the words in articles claiming to be "Portuguese" here in Misplaced Pages, because they are not Portuguese words at all - nevermind the constant verbal, pronoum differences that occur in _every_ single sentence... | |||
| : But, as I've said above, it is surely difficult for one to verify what Martin (no allegation of lying intended, of course) or I have written - what's the point in people posting unverifiable information in a sop effort to garner trust? | |||
| : Surely the only trust metric that you can use is that provided by the community sense of a Wikipedian's interactions with it? For example: | |||
| :: "My name is Tracey Edmonds. I'm 48, widowed, with 3 children. I live in ], ], where I work as a research chemist for a small local pharmecuticles cooperative. I have a PhD in biochemistry that I got from Penn. State, and have also spent time as a house-wife when my children were first growing up. | |||
| :: "I like reading books (especially Coleridge and Preust), hill walking, skiing, and scuba-diving, am a passionate Republican, and believe that we should cleanse this land of all the ills brought upon it by nefarious liberals. | |||
| :: "I would like to think that my experience in keeping my children from killing each other and promoting harmony within my family will help me, having gained the wisdom of Solomon through this process." | |||
| : ... how do you 'know' that that is any more accurate an account of who I am than anything else, except that I say it isn't, and my past history of interaction on the Misplaced Pages? | |||
| : Nevertheless, I have provided such a (I hesitate to call it 'mine', really, as even if the person described does exist, you only have my word that he is I, rather than just some stolen personality I have found that fits me suitably). | |||
| : ] ] 07:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| No one seems to do anything about this. | |||
| I have a comment. I think that some of the decisions you may gonna take involve tough decisions, such as rejecting some people from the community. This is a heavy decision. And one arbitrators must feel ready to take responsability for in case of a subsequent issue. For this reason, I feel that Alex is right in suggesting that one gives his real identity. Jimbo plainly assume every decision he takes with his real name.<br> | |||
| Now, it is true that participating to wikipedia requires not to give one's real identity, but arbitrator is not a role we would agree any wikipedian should hold. It is a step above, in the trust scale.<br> | |||
| I do not think that it "should" be a requirement that a real name and personal information is known by all of us, but if people accept to give information, so much the best. If they do not, no big deal. Or if they feel like staying in the middle, they can offer that information to one trusted person, who will keep it private. The three options are ok to me. | |||
| Am i to believe what other Portuguese partners have told me, and to just give up on Misplaced Pages? | |||
| Jdforrester, I lived on Broadway Rd, Mac Clintock corner, in Tempe. I liked the place very much ;-) | |||
| Then it's truly sad, because it means Wiki is not a place for cultural exchange, but for cultural terrorism. Maybe they in south America are used to this, but i, absolutely am not. | |||
| Part of the issue is accountability. If you don't want to disclose who you are why should a judge recognize your decisionmaking as final? If you want arbitration to be binding and final then it has to be betweeen people, not imaginary characters made up to "keep private" the identity of the author of those characters. Imagine if all these people are really just one person who has developed the ability to create and run multiple user accounts on Misplaced Pages: | |||
| Most of the threads from Portuguese and non-Brazillian members i checked were outside Wiki, because simply put people no longer ontribute here because they now the Brazillians will be banned, censor, rejected. This is wrong! | |||
| User A: I agree with you, User B. | |||
| User B; You are right User A. | |||
| There is currently a thread on this subject on the PT section, the admins are all brazillian, the pages are all written in brazillian, the UI is all in brazillian, and every dissenting opinion\article is removed at once. What the heck? | |||
| Now if User A and User B are the same person, there is no agreement, is there? Why does someone who want to take on the responsibility to effect users lives not want to disclose who they are? Yes, they don't want anyone to know who they are so they cannot be confronted with their decision. Anonymity is great for people who don't want anyone to know who they are. Accountability requires verifiable identities. I don't buy the argument that everyone who puts themselves in the spotlight deserves absolute privacy, especially arbitrators. Judges have to disclose their relationships between the parties, their interests in corporations, and their professional qualifications; in a democracy judges are subject to a high degree of scrutiny in their public lives. Why should it be any different for arbitrators? I am asking for verifiability, not an invasion of privacy and not self serving "biographies" that could be just as much fiction as a novel. ] 13:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| --> ] | |||
| : *sighs* | |||
| : I'm sorry, I'm evidently not saying what I mean coherently enough, as we seem to each be reiterating the same points to each other; let me try again: | |||
| :* I'm happy to give a biography about myself, and have indeed done so. | |||
| :* I'm aware of the privacy that I otherwise enjoy, but am happy to give up said freedom if it pleases others. | |||
| :* I'm aware that I and the other arbitrators have been entrusted with a lot of power, and that we must be seen to be fair, and to some extent accountable to the overall community. | |||
| :* My (main) point is that the information we have been asked to provide is unverifiable, and as such is no more than a diversion, making people believe that they can have trust in 'us', but not actually providing anything 'real' or tangible. | |||
| : ... and thus we arbitrators are giving up our privacy for no real point other than a falsely assumed sense of security. | |||
| : ] ] 16:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| The title translated is, "versions of Portuguese language". What versions, if all we see is their own peculiar one? All others are shot down in flames. This truly is nationalistic fascism at play. | |||
| Should i just give up and forget the freedom to use and enjoy my language? I have to be honest as is, the brazillian content is totally useless, to me, to most Portuguese i know, and it surely isn't right for a child to get there and see words that to her mean nothing and negate the education she gets in school - not to mention the barrage of grammar errors the brazillian governement, like pretty much everything else, seems impotent to resolve, solve, and educate in its own anarchic country :(, and occur literally in every sentence. It's nearly unreadable and it sure isn't educational. Sad, sad, sad :( | |||
| :If you gave a phone number, Jimbo could call you at a random date and time. If you've paid somebody to pose as you at that number, perhaps you won't have paid them enough to memorize all your postings to Misplaced Pages, some obscure questions about which Jim could pose to you. Or since he runs a business you could probably put a 3 cent refundable deposit down with his company, and if the charge went through he would know have a credit identity that could be traced (or a $10,000 deposit to be refunded only upon retiring from a term of office during which you live up to the highest standards!). Or he could send registered letters to addresses 1 digit higher and 1 digit lower than the one you provide and ask your neighbors if you really live there (or would one to you work? Do post office people ask for ID?). I dunno. Verification doesn't seem a priori hopeless once you give some off-Web info.] 01:15, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| At bare minumum: Seperate these totally different ways of using Portuguese, one is cannibalizing the other. | |||
| While James maintains that his identity is unverifiable, confirms the existence of a James Forrester doing the course he claims to be doing, and a simple email is sufficient to provide all the verification a reasonable person might need. Food for thought. ] 01:05, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===Wait a moment=== | |||
| I guess I don't see why there should be "personal" accountability, or why any of this is even relevant. The ''accountability'' ought to be based on the ''decisions'' of the committee: not who they are, but whether they make good decisions. If a particular committee member is consistently voting in odd ways that are out of sync with the wishes of the wider Misplaced Pages community, then that user should not be voted onto the committee again. If, on the other hand, the committee is making decisions that the rest of the community sees as reasonable, then there's no problem. I don't really care who is behind all these handles; I only care what sorts of decisions they make. --] 01:25, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| There are a couple of things that should be noted in this rant: | |||
| :That's my view too. Knowing who everybody is in real life is all very nice, and if people want to tell people who they are, that's fine, but I don't see why it should be required. If I have a degree in the history of art, or once worked for the government, or have a taste for hardcore Chilean bisexual pornography (and I'm not saying I do, but it is my birthday in six months, so if you're stuck for gift ideas...), then so what? --] 03:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *Brazilian Portuguese is not a wrong version of Portuguese. It is not the fruit of neglect due to poor and uneducated people influencing the language, but actually, the influence of the greater number of immigrants that came from nations other than Portugal, along with some dialects absorbed from indigenous inhabitants since colonial times. | |||
| ] ] 05:28, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *While you may consider what is written to be grammatical errors, it is not that way for Brazilian Portuguese speakers. One could say your Portuguese is totally wrong because it derived from a completely wrong manner of writing latin. That would not be a fair thing to say. | |||
| *It is unfair to mention the little portuguese children not being able to read the article, because the other way around the little brazilian children would not being able to read the article. While you can't favor one over another, out of the 220 million people that speak portuguese in the world, 180 are brazillian, or 81%. I guess as it is Misplaced Pages is able to appeal to the greatest number of people this way, democratically, as I would put it. Either way, as it is, it facilitates your prized cultural exchange more than the other way around. | |||
| *The arguments were not presented with a neutral point of view. The tone is generally offensive, and there are unprecedent and unjustified claims, such as implying Brazilians are ashamed of themselves, that South America is used to cultural terrorism, that the brazilian government is impotent to resolve everything. | |||
| *I wouldnt deny that the portuguese wiki is brazilian centered, and that there might be articles that sprouted from nationalism. Nevertheless, it is still Misplaced Pages and people strive to maintain a neutral point of view. While some might complain about it being brazilian centered, the portuguese language, contemporarily, IS brazilian centered. Also, that rant sounded somewhat nationalistic from the Portugal side, considering the way that Portugal's portuguese was considered "right" and that at every opportunity there was a subjective insult or attempt to diminish Brazil and Brazilian Portuguese. You also did not sign your comments. | |||
| I would request for anyone reading this to be moderate on the subject, as the way it was originally presented was extremely radical, and perhaps unreasonable. ] 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with Alex that the arbitration committee needs to have some transparency if they are going to be making binding decisions. For example, I think it would be a wise policy that the committee should have to admit to what usernames they are using. It seems highly unfair that someone would be editing, and possibly getting into conflicts with others under one username, and then making arbitration decisions under another. I'm not demanding to know their names in real life, but their usernames on Misplaced Pages really ought to be a minimum requirement. Are the arbitration committee themselves even aware of this information? If so, should the rest of the community not be told, or at least told that the committee are aware of it and have decided for whatever reason that they wish to withhold this information. If it is withheld, you risk the information leaking out anyway and rumours about which users other users might be will seriously reduce the amount of faith people have in the committee. ]] 17:33, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :(Note: for simplicity, I will use 'Portuguese' for Portuguese-from-Portugal and 'Brazilian' for Portuguese-from-Brazil. Portuguese and Brazilian, without quotes, will be taken to mean People-from-Portugal and People-from-Brazil) | |||
| :That I definitely agree with. The current version of this page links to all our User: pages, but if anyone has second (or third) accounts that they use besides the one listed, those should be mentioned. --] 23:34, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I completely agree - if anybody uses a second (or third, fourth...) username, they should declare it (I tend to think the same about all users, but I think it's even more important in the case of arbitrators). I personally am not aware of any of the arbitrators being in this position, however (I may be missing something, of course). --] 01:50, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that the problem User#1 perceives rests mostly on the URL: pt.wikipedia.org. | |||
| We will explicitly deal with this (#4 on the current agenda), along with similar issues of openness and suchlike. For the time being, we have no power, so no harm done. ] 01:53, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Online, just like you expect ".uk" sites to be in the Queen's English and ".aus" sites to favour Australian speech, you assume returns located at ".pt" URLs to be written in 'Portuguese', and those stationed at ".br" to be in 'Brazilian' - thus allowing you to make your choice of what to read. | |||
| == Help! == | |||
| :'Portuguese' and 'Brazilian' are, indeed, very different languages - not like UK-English and US-English are different, but rather like Strine differs from UK-English differ, or Ebonics differs from US-English. Neither is "better" or "superior" or "more correct": they simply have different grammatical rules and vocabularies - 'Brazilian' breaks many rules in the 'Portuguese' grammar and I assume that 'Portuguese', likewise, breaks many rules in the 'Brazilian' grammar. | |||
| : ''Policy suggestions now at ] and ]'' | |||
| :A 'Portuguese' speaker will look at an article written in 'Brazilian' and find spelling or verb-tense "mistakes" which, in 'Portuguese', are unacceptable at Primary School level, and attempt to "correct" them. The same will happen to a 'Brazilian' speaker reading a 'Portuguese' article. | |||
| : I think that you probably want to persue a course of ] first, as part of the ], before you move on to arbitration (and, indeed, this will probably be part of the ground rules for arbitration, once we have written and published them). The arbitration committee is just getting started, and so we're not really able to do much of anything right now. | |||
| : Really, try to talk with the people who you are having disagreements with, and if necessary try to involve a dis-interested third party too. Arbitration is a very much final answer for when mediation has failed... | |||
| : HTH. | |||
| : ] ] 13:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Moreover, where vocabulary is concerned, hundreds of 'Brazilian' words are unknown/unacceptable in 'Portuguese', and vice-versa. | |||
| Jack, while your policy suggestions are appreciated, as far as I am aware Jimbo has not delegated the ability to set policy to the arbitration committee. I suggest you discuss your proposals further at ] or ]. ] 00:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :These facts, taken together, just lead to misunderstandings and to the feeling that you are reading a terribly badly-written article, if it's not in the version of the language you were taught. | |||
| :Ok, thank you for your kindness. I didn't know where else to go. ] deletes anything I add to their talk page (edit notes refering to me as a troll) rather than responding, so I don't see how mediation is possible. But I will do what I can to contact a third party and see if there can be mediation. As far as my policy suggestions, I will post them on those two locations, and maybe the mailing list. Thanks, ] 02:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Therefore, it would be good form to have pt.wikipedia for the 'Portuguese' language and br.wikipedia for the 'Brazilian' language, as is the norm in the great majority of websites in the language in general. | |||
| == Mediators who are arbitrators == | |||
| Mr Chairman, I beg your leave to ask if there is a policy that no person can simultaneously serve as both arbiter and mediator. If there is no such policy, then I humbly ask that its adoption be considered. -- ] 23:58, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :(Im/Partiality: Though I'm a native Portuguese-English speaker, I never use the current pt.wikipedia, much less edit it. One of the reasons I always prefer the English article over the Portuguese article is the fact that, yes, it is very hard to read an article which is not in "my version" of the Portuguese language.) ] 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi Lord Emsworth. Currently, no person is both a mediator and an arbitrator. There are no plans to elect new mediators or arbitrators until the end of this year. At some point before this point, the community will consider whether it wants to have people serving as both mediators and arbitrators. ] 00:03, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : I would like to add that, although all users have the right to their opinion, the rules for the community state that "if an article is initially written in one version, unless major changes (50%) are made by someone speaking the other version, the original version must be kept". And, being Portuguese, I find Brazilian Portuguese "ugly", but one must remember the other way around. I refuse to write in Brazilian Portuguese (or should I say, I don't know how to!), but if I contribute to a Brazilian-Portuguese article, I'm counting that someone will change it for me. The same way I'll change Brazilian->European in a European Portuguese Article. | |||
| ::correction. Jimbo suggested that there were no plan to elect new arbitrators until the end of this year. However, no such thing was said about mediators. We are currently discussing this topic. ] | |||
| : As for little children, it's a false issue. If they can read SMS-Portuguese language, they can perfectly read the alternate version of Portuguese. What we (grown-ups) are afraid to say, but really think, is that we are afraid our children will not learn the version we consider "correct... ] 12:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Tacky == | |||
| ::: Thanks Anthere, for that correction. :) ] 00:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I decided to return to this matter just to say how incredibly tacky and incompetent the Arb Com's handling of this matter has been. I found out that this matter had been dropped (who knows when) after inquiring about it on someone's talk page. I received absolutely no notice. And, to date, neither, apparently, has ]. This has been a colossal waste of my time and of the people who were kind and concerned enough to render assistance in this matter. | |||
| ==]== | |||
| To my way of thinking, the Arb Com dropped the ball -- in more ways than one. At least you didn't require me to reformat the copious info presented in the RfC for this process. The singular good thing is Pharlap's wasted time and effort in compiling an utterly meaningless assemblage of completely unrelated and, again, out-of-context bullcrap -- as if my comments anywhere on this website have anything at all to do with the racist Wareware's Tourette's-like comportment. | |||
| Would you ban ], please? I've brought this up endlessly on other pages and not one user has written one word in Lir's favor. ] 00:05, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I can't say this experience has inspired any confidence or respect on my part for the arbitration process. Frankly, you guys suck. *x* ] 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : The arbitrators do not currently have the authority to ban anyone. First we need to create and propose a set of procedures, which must then be approved by the community and given Jimbo's stamp of approval. Your assistance in doing so would be appreciated. In the meantime, the prior arrangements for banning apply. ] 00:09, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Wareware left Misplaced Pages months ago, and has not to date returned. What use would it have been to take any action against someone has already left? If he does return at some later date, it can be dealt with then. ] 07:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::. ] 13:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| That's too bad. Yes, I'll see what assistance I can provide. With Lir in mind, I just now added a few points of ].] 00:46, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Ambi, are you ''deliberately'' missing my point? After several members of the Arb Com voted to consider the matter, ''no one'' on the Arb Com ever bothered to notify us that the matter had been dropped. In fact, there ''still'' has been no formal notification to that effect posted to Wareware's talk page. I repeat: '''tacky''' and '''utterly incompetent'''. The Arb Com ''still'' sux.] 15:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Title== | |||
| : Don't be difficult. If you bring a case against someone who has left, what exactly do you expect? The Committee's job is to fix problems, not "right wrongs". | |||
| Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my consideration that this page could be moved to ], in order to follow the standard used by the Mediation Committee. Otherwise, that page should be moved to ]. My suggestion is but for the sake of consistency. -- ] 02:42, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : ] ] 00:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Don't be presumptuous and patronizing -- especially when you don't know what you're talking about. I don't need to be schooled on the function of the Arb Com. The Arb Com voted, then served notice that it was considering the case and asked for submissions of evidence, ''knowing full well'' that Wareware was no longer around. When it suddenly reversed itself, ''it notified no one''. The Arb Com in this matter was incompetent and inefficient and lacking in the most rudimentary common courtesy. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't worth squat. *x* ] 06:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Done. | |||
| : ] ] 00:29, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Frankly, I could care less. We're here to deal with users who continue to interfere with the writing of an encyclopedia. Wareware had ceased to do that by ceasing to edit Misplaced Pages, thus we have no reason to continue to intervene. You can be as insulting as you like, and you can act like the guy you're complaining about as much as you like, but I don't think anyone here will be too fussed unless he does return. ] 08:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ----- | |||
| Uh, I think you mean you ''couldn't'' care less? :p Well, my dear, that much is evident in the Arb Com's '''tacky''' mishandling of the matter -- which is precisely my point. LOL Incompent. Rude. Inefficient. Worthless. Further, calling the Arb Com on its gross mishandling of this matter is hardly on par with stalking someone around the web site, spewing vile, racist venom. Or, did you even bother to read the complaint? (A strictly rhetorical question. Given your comments thus far, I'd hardly trust you to understand the difference even if you had.) ] 12:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you need to step back and examine ] along with the ArbCom's history and mandate. Once a user has left Misplaced Pages, there is no sense in overly bureaucratizing a point which is moot. Should Wareware return, of course the case should be reopened. But why bother just to make a ]? --] 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Then, perhaps the Arb Com should "step back and examine" its actions in this matter. Why, then, did it vote to take the matter under consideration and ''then'' ask for evidence? And then why did it not follow through? And when it changed its course of action, why then did it not even bother to notify the involved parties? I repeat: Incompetent. Inefficient. Tacky. ] 04:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Will we know why UC removed himself from the list ? I think this is most unfortunate. ] | |||
| Just to add my 2 cents: ] - ''Being on the Arbitration Committee is the most thankless job on Misplaced Pages. It is absolutely impossible to do it such that people are happy with you. If you are doing a bad job, people complain; if you are doing a good job, people don't notice (or sometimes even then complain). All of your actions are examined under a microscope. People expect you to be the Oracle of all truth - to work miracles no matter how complicated the case, no matter how how bad the evidence, no matter how hostile and stubborn the disputants. And of course, there are the accusations of cabalism.'' ] 23:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I gather UC has written to the other arbitrators about it, though my email is playing up so I've not got the message yet. I don't think we should quote him without permission, anyway - if you want to know why UC left, I guess asking him directly would be the best way to find out :) --] | |||
| :Excuses. For the record, I expected no such thing. What I ''did'' expect was a minimal degree of thoroughness and courtesy, and the Arb Com proved pitiably incapable of delivering either. I mean, how hard is it to drop someone a note? That someone on the Arb Com would even ''try'' to defend/excuse such bumbling ineptitude demonstrates just how worthless the Arb Com is. ] 02:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::oki. | |||
| ::The point is that people will complain regardless of how well we do our {voluntary, unpleasant, thankless} job - a point you have proven quite thoroughly. ] 02:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No. The point is that people will complain in light of how ''poorly'' you do your job -- or, should I say when you ''fail'' to do your job? :p ] 04:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::UC, why did you remove yourself from the list of arbitrators ? ] | |||
| ::It is ''not'' our job to notify anybody but people directly affected by ArbCom rulings of anything other than the opening of cases (and even that is limited to people involved in the case). If you want to track the progress of a particular case, then put the respective case pages on your watchlist and/or add {{tl|ArbComOpenTasks}} to your user page. Now stop bitching. --] 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was thinking maybe on his talk page :) - he might not be watching this page any more. --] | |||
| The page ''was'' on my watch list, and I ''was'' directly involved in the matter. There was ''nothing'' -- absolutely nothing -- that indicated the case had been dropped. People like me won't bitch if the Arb Com ''does its job''. Incompetents! *x* ] 14:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Resignations == | |||
| : After lengthy consideration I have concluded that the direction the committee has taken no longer matches the activity for which I volunteered. At the time I expressed my interest in the committee to Jimbo, I had hoped that arbitration could serve as a way of resolving disputes early, at the stage before the ] started, and the civility-destroying effects of peoples' frustration ran their course. I also saw it as an extension of ], where we would be able to resolve editorial disagreements, and that our means of implementation would be the respect of the "disputants" and the community for our actions. | |||
| Some of the arbitrators (], ], ]) have indicated that they wish to resign (according to ]), but they are unsure how they would be replaced, or what the mechanism was. | |||
| ::''as for resolving disputes before forestfires...yes, that is not the current direction...May I suggest that what you could have been seeking for was perhaps more related to mediation than the current arbitration ? Agreed, the mediator must not take decision...still...I have a suggestion : the step called "poll" requires to be expanded. Look, if there can be a rather global agreement to do something, even like temp banning, fire containing, silence respecting, page protecting...whatever...that can be rather globally decided...without last arbitration step, would not that be a good thing ?'' | |||
| Having thought about this, wouldn't it be the case that the next person (in this case ], ], ]) on the list at ] becomes their replacement? ] 14:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Isnot that somehow the way MB works ? There is no arbitration. When most users agree to go in a direction, they do it, and that's it. If further issue is pushed, then, Sunir decides.'' | |||
| ::''Currently, the whole poll business is just fluffy. I will give an example I think is relevant though I should perhaps not (but I think there is no problem as it is public information). Some users consider Lir is a vandal, who should be banned. And some honestly believe everyone agrees on this. While I think that obviously other users believe she is not, or even consider her usefull and reformed. I may suggest that a poll be done on the topic to estimate general opinion on the matter, and perhaps find a way that will both suit the ones very upset by her, and the other ones as well. '' | |||
| :The Arbcom seems to have become very slow because of lack of active members, so they do need to be replaced. However I would be totally against just pulling the highest losers into position (presumably after having checked their continued willingness to serve). We should have a ]. ] | ] 14:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::''could not you work at some previous step in the process, that might help perhaps, more in the direction you were thinking of ?'' | |||
| ::Is that a Misplaced Pages procedure, or just UK government? ] 14:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''I hope you understand what I wrote, because I am tired, and can't write very properly. Apology. ] 20:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)'' | |||
| :::Don't know exactly why you ask the question—but as far as I know there is no set procedure, and I'm making a suggestion. I think the principle should be that users only get to be arbitrators by being elected to the post. ] | ] 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Instead, we have become something of a dumping ground for problem users, where we are following an increasingly legalistic process that is intended to conclude, in most cases, with some sort of suspension of editing privileges. We are not providing Misplaced Pages with early dispute resolution, but rather formally ratifying the community consensus after a contributor has already become destructive. I do not wish to participate in this, because my interests and strengths lie elsewhere. | |||
| *I do believe we should put it up to a vote (i.e. ask who wish to be candidates and vote amongst them). Soon, too - this is important. ]]] 19:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Suffice it to say, we (the committee) and Jimbo have been discussing this for several weeks and we should have an announcement soon. ] 20:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : ] 20:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) | |||
| How soon is ''soon'' ? ] 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :Not sure -- I had hoped to have an announcement out by July 1, but that's a non issue now. ] 02:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''moved from ]'' | |||
| They really need to sort it out ASAP, as the WP:RFAR page is getting swamped, and it looks like there are only 3 arbitrators actually giving initial opinions on whether to hear cases, and it needs 4 to confirm anything. ] 12:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Arbitration Committee== | |||
| *The ''one year'' banning of Plautus was grossly excessive. Even ''I'' wasn't banned for a year. ] | |||
| **Funny comment Lir, but are you sure this is posted on the right page ? | |||
| ***Yes. ] | |||
| **Banning isn't an admin privilege; it's the sole privilege of Jimbo and his designated agents, the Arbitration Committee. If you want to expose this issue in the public eye, the Village Pump is probably more appropriate than this page; if you want the Arbitration Committee to notice, the best method is probably to take the issue directly to them. -- ] 23:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| **A quick glance at ] shows that pretty much everyone wants him gone. Those of us who actually had to deal with him think he got off very lightly. So Lir, why are you wasting everyone's time with this frivilous complaint? ] 00:33, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***It's Lir's right to have an opinion, and, as he is not banned, his privilege to post about the topic on Misplaced Pages. My own concern is that he should post in the most effective place to achieve his goals. I've found ] to be instructive reading on the subject of ban lengths. -- ] 01:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***The arbitration committe consists of admins, thus, what they do can be construed as an abuse of their power. ] | |||
| ***Yes, but not an abuse of their ''admin'' powers. (There's no reason why a non-admin couldn't be a member of the committee.) Your typical admin isn't endowed with the right to ban users, only to block them. Let me put it to you this way: if Jimbo himself had made the decision, it would not be an abuse of ''admin'' privileges, and the Arbitration Committee is simply his ] in this matter. The only possible thing they could be abusing by handing down this ban is Jimbo's trust in them. -- ] 05:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***There isn't a page for possible misuses of arbitration powers. ] | |||
| ***So what do you want to have happen? Do you want to heighten awareness of this ban and your assertion of its unfairness? Do you want the ban's length shortened? Do you have some other goal that I haven't considered? Whatever your goal is, is it best served by this listing, or is there some other forum that would better serve your purpose? (Sorry about the barrage of questions; I'm just not sure what it is you want.) -- ] 06:37, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ***What I want isn't achievable, since I'm not even an accepted member of the community. But it doesn't hurt to try and point out that this site is dominated by some unfriendly types. ] | |||
| :Yes, it's happening. ] 13:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Lir: you (and other folks banned by Jimbo) were banned indefinately, for a potentially infinite length of time. Plautus is banned for a year. You had to beg Jimbo to be allowed to edit again, whereas Plautus can just wait a year. So there are differences. ] 13:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::When? ] 18:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Just to be clear: it's not true that all arbitrators are also ]. Gutza and nohat, for example, are not (though Gutza is on the Romanian 'pedia, I believe, and both may well become admins here at some point in the future). --] | |||
| :::The commitee's position on the matter has been settled more-or-less unanimously for several weeks now, since before July I think. At this point, (whether or not he decides to take our advice) we're waiting for Jimbo to announce it. So to answer your question, "when" is whenever Jimbo is ready to. ] 19:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ==Admissibility of mediation stuff== | |||
| ::::So is Jimbo going to announce ''ex cathedra'' that the committee is being replenished with a group of people suggested to him by the current arbitration committee? A lot of people are going to be not best pleased with that, you know! ] ] 20:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I've been thinking about confidentiality with regards to mediation. Some of the issues touch on arbitration - in particular on whether anything said during mediation can be used in future arbitrations. Have you discussed this at all? Please see ] and the ]. Thanks -- ] ] 22:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We did anticipate that some people would complain about appointments rather than an election. However, given that (A) the last election was a horribly nasty experience that no one wants to repeat more often than necessary (B) we just completed the board election a few days ago, and (C) the arbcom election is a little more than 5 months away, it was decided that appointments would be much better all-around. ] 02:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| At the same time, it could be possible to discuss communications between advocates and their clients; e.g., if a client sends an e-mail to his attorney, perhaps outlining his views towards other users, is that e-mail admissible (including in future trials where the attorney might be on the opposite side), or is it privileged? -- ] 22:22, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well I'll leave it to someone else to run coach and horses through that argument, but suffice there to say there were other options on the spectrum between full-blown elections and hidden behind closed doors, cliquey appointments. ] ] 09:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : We have discussed it, and I think the opinion seemed to be that mediation stuff wouldn't be admissable, but it never made it into ] in time for the vote. ] 22:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There are appointments and there are appointments. Is this going to be an open process or a 'word of mouth', 'who you know is more important that what you know' process? (I declare an interest in that if asked, I would myself serve, though I doubt I would be asked). ] | ] 14:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : As I understand it, mediation is meant to be in private so that involved parties feel they can talk freely. For this reason, things said in mediation are not admissible in arbitration unless all involved parties agree to it. As Martin says, I think we all agree on that, though it's not formalised anywhere. I'd consider emails between parties to arbitration and their advocates in a similar way. --] | |||
| ::::::::I too would serve if asked, but like Dbiv I doubt I would be. I wasn't around for the elections last time, so could someone summarise (or point me in the direction of a summary) of what happened to make them "a horribly nasty experience"? ] 17:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The biggest problem was that an "endorsements" page was allowed, and some people tried to make use of this to post "disendorsements" of candidates as well. The disendorsements naturally produced some very hostile debates, but by this point the process had gone too far down the path to be undone. --] 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's the norm, but sometimes there may be parts of the discussion on Misplaced Pages talk pages or the mediation boards (especially at the beginning of a mediation). Would you also consider these to be inadmissible? -- ] ] 23:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It is my understanding that Jimbo asked the current arbcom for suggestions of appointees (Jimbo not being so familiar with the day-to-day pedia these days). This was a while ago, so I assume if you are going to be asked, you have been - particularly as Raul indicated that an announcement should already have been now. Now of course the current members are great. However asking them who they'd like to co-opt will inevitably create a narrower "gene pool" of opinions than ideal. ] ] 20:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd hope that any discussion between advocate and member would be inadmissible, regardless of the medium of communication. -- ] 23:12, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That is why these will be interim appointments that will expire at the end of this year. The next regular ArbCom election will have at least 7 seats open instead of the normal 4. --] 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : OTOH, if a suspect and his lawyer conduct their discussion on a forthcoming case by yelling fire in a crowded theatre, then that might be taken into account. Similarly for Misplaced Pages. ] 17:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There's actually only five that I know of at this point - Delirium is one of the four people whose terms would be expiring anyway. ] 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Announcement of new nonbinding arbitration forum, if anyone wants to use it== | |||
| * ] is open for nonbinding arbitration or mediation of disputes, if anyone is interested in using it. If nobody is, it will become a personal opinion page for my personal opinions. ] 20:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::See below: | |||
| ==User:24.45.99.191== | |||
| Paul Vogel appeared here today at the above IP in violation of the ban. Initial blocks did not work, although unblocking and reblocking seemed to be effective. There was some confusion (on my part, at least) concerning why this IP was not already blocked. I've blocked him for 4 days (99 hours, specifically) because I wanted to wait to see what was up. Is this IP not going to be blocked? If so, how are we blocking Vogel? Also, on a related issue, if he's able to get here and edit, must those reverting his edits operate under the 3 revert rule or no? Today, everyone limited themselves to 3 edits in reverting Vogel's edits. Thank you for your prompt attention. :-) ] 19:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, now that Nohat will also be resigning, there will in fact be 7 seats open next election: | |||
| :Well, we've banned Vogel, but the rest, as they say, is up to you. I don't think the details of how the ban works in practice are up to us. Personally, I don't see any need for the three revert rule to apply here, but others may feel it's better not to make any exceptions - it shouldn't really be an issue, since he can just be blocked anyway (that assumes the blocks work, of course, which, as we've seen, they don't always...). | |||
| Tranche β (term expires 31 Dec 2005; new Tranche β's term will expire 31 Dec 2008) | |||
| :We didn't block all the IP addresses associated with Vogel when we banned him, so that explains that one. As far as I know it's not established whether the IP addresses Vogel has edited from can only possibly be used by him, or are liable to be used by others. If they can only be used by him, there's nothing wrong with blocking them all for a year, but if they might be used by others we probably don't want to do that, since we'd get innocent people get caught up in the ban. If that's the case, the only way to handle this is to just ban him for a few days at a time. But again, that's only my opinion. | |||
| #Delirium (resigned) | |||
| #Daniel Mayer | |||
| #Fred Bauder | |||
| #David Gerard | |||
| Tranche γ (term expires 31 Dec 2006) | |||
| :Legal disclaimer: All this is just my opinion and isn't necessarily one shared by other arbitrators or anybody else in the universe. --] | |||
| #David Friedland (resigned) | |||
| #Steven Melenchuk (resigned) | |||
| Tranche α (term expires 31 Dec 2007) | |||
| :: I think Lee has it right. If the admins see know other option, an IP range block has been used against other banned users, but in general we prefer to avoid banning entire cities for the actions of a single person. ] 17:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #Ambi (resigned) | |||
| I imagine that the top vote getters will get to choose which tranche they occupy. So far, I plan to run and hope Fred and David will as well. --] 01:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Poll== | |||
| I feel the Arbitration Committee is completely ineffective and causes more harm than help. As such, I feel the community should be polled to determine if the AC should be dissolved. My grievances against the Arbitration Committee are: | |||
| *The members are appointed by Jimbo and do not reflect the will of the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| *The AC does not issue judgements in a timely manner. | |||
| *The weakness of the AC has encouraged trolls, vandals, and other degenerates. | |||
| Jimbo has always and will indefinitely be the person to appoint people to the ArbCom. The difference between a regular election and an interim appointment is that people he appoints based on a regular election serve for 3 years while those he appoints for interim posts serve until the next regular election. For these interim posts he asked the current ArbCom who we thought were good choices and he said that he will base his selection on the short list we gave him. He does not, nor ever has, had to go exactly by what either the community at large or the ArbCom says. --] 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Even Jimbo being the only judicial authority was superior to the current situation - though I feel a representative Arbitration Committee would be best. --] ] 21:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Jimbo said he would model the wielding of his ultimate power on the Queen of England. That path is not being followed. ] ] 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Proposed poll wording: '''The Arbitration Committee should be dissolved.''' | |||
| ::It seems fairly clear that, either because most Wikipedians are people who suddenly become very busy without notice, or they lead very chaotic lives, that the lifespan of many arbitrators is very short. Perhaps this should be considered as the system for recruiting new arbitrators is defined. ] | ] 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :We already have ] where people can express their support or lack thereof for the arbitration committee (and people can change their vote there at any time as their views change), so there's no need for anything new. As for your specific points: it's true that Jimbo appointed the original members to the arbitration committee (in fact, anybody who asked to was put on either the arbitration or mediation committees), but he indicated that in future there would be likely be votes to appoint arbitrators (maybe somebody else will provide a link to the relevant email--I'm too lazy to look it up just now); it is true that in some cases, the AC has been rather slow in dealing with cases, and this is something which we need to work on, but I do think that in the most egregious cases, we have moved reasonably quickly--on the whole it is the relatively trivial or "difficult" cases which have taken longer; and in my opinion, the AC has not "encouraged degenerates", either through its "weakness" or anything else, but that is just my opinion. --] | |||
| The Queen of the United Kingdom has the power to dissolve Parliament, yet in practice only does so when asked by the Prime Minister, IIRC. Jimbo has yet to not follow the suggestions of others in that mold. My point is that the whole ArbCom process is an extension of his authority and exists at his consent. All we are talking about are several interim appointments; none of which will last beyond the next regular election. --] 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Do you have an argument to back up the claim that Jimbo ruling was best. Also, do you have an effective replacement idea before any suggestion of dissolution ? | |||
| :Without wanting to stretch analogies too much, when MPs resign the Queen doesn't ask the remaining MPs who should fill the gaps... an election is held. Yes Jimbo is boss, but the ArbCom will lose credibility because of this. I think he went the wrong way. | |||
| ] | |||
| :Instead it would've been highly appropriate to hold an election, learning from the experiences of last time, and re-jigging the future election calendar as needed. However it was not possible for me to even make this suggestion in a timely fashion because the "elections cause too many problems" argument (the same argument as that used in 1930s Germany btw :-), oops Mr Godwin do I lose? :-) ) was made behind closed doors. ] ] 17:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I never said that Jimbo ruling was best, however Jimbo ruling is superior to the current mess of no accountability. I have laid a very rough draft of ideas out at ] if you are interested. --] ] 03:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| The unexplained resignations have an impact on RfAr's currently in progress. Please see ], for an example. ] 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Jimbo ruling really isn't an option any more. Misplaced Pages is too big, Jimbo is too busy, etc. I agree with Cheney's desire to see an improved arbitration committee, but I suspect that we're more likely to achieve that via evolution, rather than revolution. First elections should be by the end of the year, according to Jimbo's stated plans. | |||
| :I just wanted to second Pete's concerns above, and make sure that he and everyone knows that I think that me randomly appointing people midterm is not the proper sustainable way to do this in the long run. On the other hand, I chose people who I think will be mostly uncontroversial, in the hopes that we can have a productive and positive dialog about the appointment process before the next community vote. --] 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: Like Lee, I'd encourage you to use ] to express your opinion (if you haven't already) - if you feel that many people desire immediate dissolution, then ask them to join you in voting accordingly. ] 22:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Inquiry == | |||
| == Share the pain, disagree with the solution == | |||
| User ] contacted me for help with a problem user, IP 71.65.65.165, signing the name ], but not editing under that name. PastorRussell is claiming that he has exclusive rights to ] because the arbcom gave him exclusivity to the article. As far as I know there is no such precedent or policy. His claim is bogus isn't it?. -] 22:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The arbitration committee has never given anyone exclusive control of an article (and, in all likelihood, never will). ] 02:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ombudsman? == | |||
| I share H. Cheney's pain, but do not agree with his solution. | |||
| Above it is said that being on the ArbCom is a thankless task. That there will always be complaints. But then this fact is used to seemingly say that all complaints are without merit. Just because some (or many) are without merit does not mean that all are. Yet the ArbCom seemingly never admits it is wrong or that it has made a mistake. It seems to be under the misaprehension that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness. To the contrary. I think the ArbCom as often as not makes Misplaced Pages look silly. I also think that the existence of the ArbCom allows for some vexatious complaints. I am not sure what the solution is but a tentative suggestion is the appointment of an ombudsman who will be tasked with ensuring that the ArbCom is '''seen''' to act reasonably. Appearances count and it all looks a sorry mess right now. ] 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The arbitration committee adopted a legalistic, court-like operating framework early in its history. I believe this was the fundamental mistake that made an otherwise excellent idea unworkable. | |||
| :We have an ]. ] 02:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The present arbitration mechanism has evidentiary standards and operating principles comparable to those of an institution empowered to deprive people of life, liberty, or property. In such institutions (i.e. criminal courts of law) such safeguards are necessary and desirable, as history has shown all too well. | |||
| We do not nor do I believe you really think that. As ] should make plain. ] 14:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Depriving people of the ability to edit Misplaced Pages is a far less weighty matter, and the same evidentiary standards and protections really aren't appropriate. Rather than disband the committee, leaving a vacuum, we are better off working as a community to give clearer guidance to the committee. | |||
| ==New arbitrators== | |||
| The arbitration committe had, originally, a weak mandate. Without betraying any confidences, I believe that I can say that the arbitration committee, while I participated, operated with considerable concern that it might inadvertently act in a way that the community would see as a usurping of ungranted authority. I would speculate that this continues to be prominent in the group's decisionmaking to this day. | |||
| Jimbo recently appointed three new arbitrators, of whom two are rather controversial. Jay's many battles and controversies, as well as his aggressive attitude (he's gotten into attacking me on about a weekly basis now) are presumably well-known by all of us reading here (forcing me to regrettably conclude that Jimbo knowingly did not make a fair judgment in promoting him, although I won't presume to guess exactly what his motive was). Right now I want to point out something about the new arbitrator Fennec. I think most of us would agree that an arbitrator should be an active editor and member of the community. A good way of evaluating this is by looking at one's user contributions. I went to Fennec's contributions just now to check out what he had been up to lately, and was surprised to find there was nothing for me evaluate: in the whole month of July so far, he has made only one edit. In previous months he has edited a little more, maybe 10-15 a month, although I would say this puts him only on the level of a sporadic, occasional contributor, not an active member of the community. (See his contributions .) Now, of course Fennec is active on IRC, which he rules as something like a fiefdom, banning people (or at least me—am I a special case?) perpetually for criticizing certain privileged (in his eyes) users. But does this count? In fact, for me this counts against him; it tells me that he probably owes his position to behind the scenes IRC communication rather than actual wiki-editing. ] 07:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, please do a little research before you attack people. The main reason why Fennec's name was raised is because he came so close to being elected in December. He lost to Grunt by one vote - and that was because, IIRC, he voted for Grunt. This was the reason his name was raised - not because of IRC, where he rarely even talks. ] 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I remember the election perfectly well. In fact, I myself was a candidate. If this is just about votes, why don't we have another vote? Or we should go straight down the line and appoint the next two, who were Mirv and Cecropia. I thought the idea was that uncontroversial people were supposed to be appointed as placeholders until the next election. ] 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :] doesn't like the choice of new arbitrators? Oh no! ] 16:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's hope the burnout doesn't stop with those three. ] 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Best of luck to all new arbitrators. I am sure you will all easily prove why this trust has been placed in you. ] ] 20:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The arbitration committee's mandate should be strengthened by the community. H.Cheney and others in the community who share his concern would do well to enumerate policies that the AC should follow with the hope of bringing together a community consensus. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] 02:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Jimbo Wales has publicly announced that he doesn't support democratic elections, and would rather have arbitrators that he is friends with, than those with popular support in elections. He has also, in the announcement, stated that his appointment of (temporary) arbitrators has more to do with his favouring of their judgements in preference to those that might be made by editors such as ] (the next in line in the prior election). | |||
| : I agree with this, especially its sense of perspective. I think any Arb Committee should be relaxed about its position, not take itself or the consequences of its decrees too seriously, and work fairly quickly. It should also view its purpose, not as a final arbiter of Justice or smackdowns, but as a safety mechanism to protect our most productive and community-minded editors from frustration and departure. I would be glad to see arbitration decisions of the form "we're not sure who is in the right and who is in the wrong, but this is what we've decided is most productive for the editing community: {suggestions, declarations}." ]] 21:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Hopefully this should provide a satisfactory explanation of why the three new arbitrators were chosen. ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 22:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Like UninvitedCompany, I think Hcheney has identified problems, but do not support dissolving the Arbitration Committee as a solution. | |||
| :The above is total conjecture from someone who has no facts to base it on, mixed with a total mischaracterization of Jimbo's statement. The arbitration committee made a short list of people we thought would make good arbitrators (based on our previous experiences with them), and Jimbo took our recommendation and appointed arbitrators from our short list. So no, he did not appoint them because he is friends with them; as Jimbo put it so succintly, he appointed them because we told him we think they would make good arbitrators (and he trust our judgement). ] 22:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::So what you're basically getting at here is that the members of the ArbCom picked new members of the ArbCom. ] 04:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I am yet another user unhappy with the democratic process not being used here. Since Fennec was one vote away from being elected, and James F. was one of the top vote-getters as well, I don't have a problem with them being appointed - in fact, I think they're both fine contributors and that's why so many people voted for them. On the other hand Jayjg received no votes. As opposed to Fennec and James F., in Jayjg's case the elections were ignored. The reasons for his appointment are shrouded in mystification, as is the process by which it was decided, and people questioning it here are attacked. | |||
| For my own sanity I generally avoid pages having to do with Palestine/Israel, but on my occassional forays into that morass, I have become aware of Jayjg's POV-pushing on Palestine-related pages. It's obvious to me (and looking at the above comments, obviously others) that he is going to be a lousy arbitrator. A better wiki would have stuck to the democratic process. ] 22:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, the committee was originally appointed by Jimbo, but he planned for annual elections thereafter. Also, the committee was supposed to have 12 members, meaning that at least two positions are now vacant that were scheduled for an election around December. I think we should move up the timetable for that election, since the Board election demonstrated that we have a workable election system. Having 2 additional elected members would reduce concerns about legitimacy, and also make the committee more effective. We would get quicker decisions on accepting or rejecting cases, and the committee could also build a quorum of votes more quickly to issue judgments in a timely manner. | |||
| == Potential admin abuse by Neutrality == | |||
| I also wonder if some of the existing arbitrators might not be glad to step down, if they could feel that someone else was taking over the work instead of them just abandoning it. If so, we could also have elections for additional seats being vacated. | |||
| While ] is certainly a hard working admin, he has made questionable edits, and is headed towards going against consensus reached in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=20663757&oldid=20663592#Distinguishing_one_dispute_from_another <-~ that diff ("Revision as of 02:05, 10 August 2005"), as evidenced by diff on 21:46, 9 August 2005 in the ] page. I fixed the problem (e.g., ), <s>and don't feel he has violated consensus ''again,''</s> ''(scratch that -he has -see below)'' <s>yet</s> therefore his past actions, as discussed on the talk page, make me feel it is appropriate to make a formal record of my complaint if he causes trouble again by his ] editing abuse as an admin.--] 02:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Incidentally, in proposing this election, I add that if it happens, I will not be a candidate in it myself. --] 23:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update:''' | |||
| And to think I never imagined the wikipedia AC to be so full of angst. Personally I've admired your low profile and reluctance to act. I think it takes great strength to do little! (to remove any doubt, yes I mean that) Anyway, just in case y'all have not noticed a couple of ideas (] and ]) I've been pedalling, I post them here. The ideas, particularly the first one, obviously have an impact on the AC, and could make you more of a court of appeal when the admins are being too harsh or can't reach the necessary votes to act. Anyway they're just ideas. best wishes to all ] 12:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I am new to making complaints against admins -I usually get along well with the "powers that be," and as such, I have never actually made a complaint against an admin. I did '''(1)''' Try to talk it over with the opposition; and, '''(2)''' I did talk it over on the talk page, and, by my count, with six (6) active editors participating, the vote went down '''4-2''' in favor of the version that I support, and yet Neutrality bucks all consensus and has an attitude (not a good done?). | |||
| :I agree with what UninvitedCompany said. In many ways, the Arbitration Committee has been a step in the right direction. It has allowed numerous cases to be dealt with that would either have been left to fester, or had to be dealt with by Jimbo. But it's also become clear to me, and I know I'm not the only one, that it has some fairly major problems. UninvitedCompany is spot on, in that the AC needs a stronger mandate, and needs to be less legalistic. However, I'd also add to that that I believe the whole process, on top of being legalistic, is just outright slow. When dealing with nuisance users, it shouldn't be taking weeks to get a response. And on that note, I agree with Michael Snow, about the election for those places. How about setting a date? | |||
| When you include the agreement by my Chinese and Hispanic colleagues at the other wikis (see the appropriate links in ]), and considering one other editor who is not currently active, I think the vote would more accurately be '''7-2''' in my favor, not even counting the "google.com" meta-analysis I performed. | |||
| :There's also one point which I believe could be addressed by the arbitration committee as it stands. In the last week, I've seen two cases referred to mediation that were patently unsuitable for it. | |||
| Neutrality appears to have called my bluff, here: | |||
| :In many cases, mediation is a great idea, and in the case of disputes over article content, it ''is'' very useful. However, in cases where you have a nuisance user who is being a nuisance across a wide number of articles, there's not much there to have a mediation about. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20665553&oldid=20664323 | |||
| I wonder if he violated consensus, and by proxy and extension, whether he violated ] policy regarding abuse of admin powers. ?? --] 02:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :While the AC has chosen to put off doing anything, one of these people has had to be temp-banned (twice, now), and I've heard complaints about the other user from at least eight different people. In my opinion, trying to send these cases to mediation is a waste of time, and just ensures that they'll fester, and drive good editors mad. ] 09:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Hm? Did he use any admin powers? ]·] 06:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''"Hm? Did he use any admin powers?"''' Not this time, not ''yet'' anyhow, but just give him time: In the past he has blocked at least one person for no reason, referring to NCdave, whose edits were passionate but usually not POV and not inaccurate. Further, when an admin edits and makes questionable edits, the "intimidation" factor is present. That is why those in authority are generally held to a higher standard. Lastly, even if his abuses were merely "editor" abuses, and not of admin powers, that is inexcusable. For example, another editor has complained about his hit-and-run edits, in which he just comes in and -without concensus or discussion -edits. I don't have the diff handy, but I might be able to find it if I searched hours and hours. The point, however, is this: If he abuses editor powers, he would abuse admin powers too. I feel bad that I don't have Duckecho's diff handy, where he too complained about Neutrality, but Neutrality has been here long enough that we can see that he sometimes edits as a "Lone Ranger" and without concensus or discussion, so my point stands or falls on its own merits -not the merits of another diff, which I can't find at the moment.--] 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Minor issue of semantics== | |||
| Well, there are now elections planned. See and ]. --] | |||
| Why are they called "arbitrators" and not just "arbiters"? ] 16:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Because they arbitrate, they don't arbite! -] 06:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Elections== | |||
| ::So this parrot kept biting me, and I asked the pirate that owned him, "What's he called?", and said ''"Arrrrr. . . Biter!"'' Then I asked him what he looked for in a good modem, and he answered ''"Arrrr. . . Bitrate!"'' <small>(Thanks, I'll be here all week.)</small> – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ] for details of the election for two new members of the Arbitration Committee. ]] 23:15, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Election suggestion== | |||
| == Proposed alterations to the policy == | |||
| I have had some thoughts on Arbitration Committee appointment, see for discussion. ] 18:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I've knocked up a few ] to the ] - thoughts? | |||
| <br /> | |||
| ] ] 03:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merry Christmas!!== | |||
| == Level of arbitrator participation == | |||
| ] 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)]] | |||
| The arbitrators have haphazardly noted here whether a particular arbitrator is "Inactive" or "Away". I think it would be useful to take a closer look at just how much (or how little) some of the arbitrators have participated over the past year. | |||
| To do this it is unfortunately necessary to single some people out. I do this not to criticize anyone; being an arbitrator is a thankless and time-consuming responsibility, this is a volunteer project where people do work because they want to do it, and certainly when most of the arbitrators volunteered for the task they cannot have fully anticipated what they were getting into. Nevertheless, as we will soon have another election for the Arbitration Committee, I think we need to consider whether it is necessary to replace a number of the current arbitrators. | |||
| I have summarized here the extent to which several arbitrators have participated in arbitration cases over recent months. I think that given the current caseload of the Arbitration Committee, it is clear that these levels of participation are inadequate for the task. | |||
| *Camembert's most recent participation was a single edit on August 29, at which time he also after having been "Away". When he on July 23, Camembert indicated it was "for reasons of sanity. If there is a mechanism to replace me permanently, then feel free to do so. If there is not, I will probably make a return in a month or two". Before this, his most recent edit to an arbitration case was on July 8. | |||
| *Delirium's pattern of editing arbitration cases has been: | |||
| **February: 30 edits | |||
| **March 7-11: 8 edits | |||
| **April 4: 1 edit | |||
| **May 6-7: 7 edits | |||
| **June: 7 edits | |||
| **July 28-29: 5 edits | |||
| **August 16: 1 edit | |||
| **October 15: 2 edits | |||
| *Gutza made 3 edits to arbitration cases in March before experiencing an internet outage. Since then, he has made 1 edit on June 25 and 8 edits on July 31. | |||
| *Maveric149 has not participated in an arbitration case since August 26, when he . Before that, he was a reasonably regular participant. | |||
| *Nohat's history of editing arbitration cases has been 3 edits in February, 5 edits in March, 2 edits in April, and a flurry of 15 edits in early May. Then nothing until 1 edit on August 31. Finally, 5 additional edits scattered in September, the most recent on September 27. | |||
| Each no doubt has reasons for focusing on other activities. Mav, for example, is now functioning as Wikimedia CFO and has had to devote considerable attention to financial matters. The choices they have made are not "wrong" in any sense; it merely means that they have been unable to serve effectively as arbitrators. | |||
| I have great respect for the many contributions each of these users has made to Misplaced Pages. I do not question whether they have the ability or judgment to be good arbitrators - when they ''have'' participated in cases, each has had something valuable to contribute. But unless they want to demonstrate a renewed commitment in the coming weeks to dealing with the problems before the Arbitration Committee, each of these users should be replaced as part of the coming election. --] 06:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :For your information - in the upcoming election, James' (Jwro...g) and my seats re up, as are Cunc's and James (jdforesster). Martin Harper and Gutza have both resigned, effective in December. We (the arbcom and Jimbo) are not sure how to replace them, but suffice it to say, by the end of the year, the arbcom should have a large amount of new blood. ] 06:26, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::Martin's resigning? That's too bad, he's been one of the most diligent. --] 06:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's for personal reasons. I think he said he was either moving or getting a new job (I cannot remember which), so he won't have the time to do it. ] 06:38, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : For my part, I would have resigned already if I was under the impression that there were suitable candidates interested in the position. Evidence suggests that there are not: The last election, which was widely advertised, drew a mere three acceptable candidates for a the two open seats. Unless there are indication that this is likely to change, I plan not to resign as a way of keeping wholly unqualified people out: Doing nothing is better than actively doing harm. --] 07:24, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :: As the fourth-placed candidate in that election, I take offense at that statement, Delirium. ] 08:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ambi, while I am sure someone has the right to be offended by Delirium, I do think it's worth noting that the three "acceptable" users were not named -- for all anyone knows, neither Raul nor I are among the three acceptable. And I hope Delirium will not say any more about it -- even if he's right, announcing it here I think serves only to divide the community. ] 19:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed I won't, and I actually made the "three" assessment a long time ago, so I don't even remember which three it was, and I could well have been mistaken. However, there are already six people currently up for election. Do we reasonably have more than six qualified people willing to take the post? --] 18:13, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Patience - the deck and other home improvements I've been doing for my mom are almost done. When that is done, I'll have 16 to 20 more hours a week to work on Misplaced Pages stuff - including arbitration. In short, my lack of participation in ArbCom matters is not the result in any systemic issue with my time or long term priorities here. --] 04:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Given mav's high level of involvement until these recent issues, I strongly agree that there is no need to consider a replacement for him. I think (though I may be wrong) that the lack of involvement on the others' part is for different reasons -- I hope they will comment here, especially if they have no desire to continue as arbitrators. ] 04:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll take mav's reassurance that he does intend to return to participation; in his case, it was difficult tell how temporary the issues were given his increased responsibilities elsewhere. --] 06:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::With any luck I should be back to ArbCom duty in two, maybe three weeks (if it rains next weekend). --mav | |||
| ==Suffrage== | |||
| Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive, but I wonder if the above picking apart of arbitrators' activity was really necessary. If the idea was to find out whether we'd be continuing as arbitrators beyond this year, why not just ask on our talk pages? As it is, although this apparently wasn't meant to be criticism, it ''feels'' like I'm being told off for not putting real life aside to do something which I only agreed to do on a voluntary basis in the first place (and which, incidentally, I did quite a lot in the first months of the committee's existence). But, as I say, I'm perhaps being too sensitive, so I'll shut up about it. | |||
| I feel that suffrage in these elections are rather arbitrary, as a person could be both a long-term member and have substantial quantities of edits without being a good Wikipedian, while a rather new but obviously dedicated user is an upstanding Wikipedian who is being prevented from voting by qualifications that don't reflect their dedication to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| As to edit-count, I would think a more proportional standard applied to their time registered would be appropriate. Additionally, a measurement of how often a person's edits are reverted could be a qualifier. ] 05:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==EffK Trial== | |||
| Enough whining. To get to the point: yes, I've been inactive for the past few months (not just in arbitration, but on the Misplaced Pages in general); yes, I intend to return to arbitration in a few days time; no, I don't intend to continue as an arbitrator beyond this year. My initial break from the committee ("for reasons of sanity") had to be extended unexpectedly (for personal reasons). I thought I was still on the "away" list during that extended break (in which case my absence would have had less of an impact, since only a majority of ''active'' arbitrators are needed for a vote to pass), forgetting that I had put myself back on the "active" list. My apologies for that. I'm back on the "away" list now, and, as I say, intend to return shortly. --] | |||
| I come here in good faith to say that I am un-able to load my own Evidence page from the link in Arbcom AND to request someone of good faith to load into that evidence the following, for me, at the top of my evidence. This could be a browser issue, but I have enough experience here to wonder always whether there is sinister abuse of Misplaced Pages preventing normal function. | |||
| : Michael - I'm afraid I do need to resign, simply because I am going to be out of time to be an effective arbitrator. I am writing this at 5am local time, which is clearly not a healthy long-term state! :) Once I've resigned, I'm going to see how the next year pans out - both for me personally, and for the arbitration committee. Depending on that, I ''may'' consider standing for arbitrator again in the future. I am also looking forward to being able to work on Misplaced Pages as an editor, and trying to write some fantastic new articles. | |||
| ===11 January 2005=== | |||
| : Under the existing system, arbitrators who take an extended leave of absence hinder only in that they don't make proposals - their lack of votes is not a problem. This could change further (eg, mav's ideas), so that it need not matter if some arbitrators are less active than others. Thus, rather than ''replacing'' comparatively inactive arbitrators, it may make more sense to add new arbitrators ''in addition'' to them. ] 05:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| *10.49 | |||
| ::To Martin I would say that there is very much a need for more active arbitrators, and I felt there needed to be some relatively prompt action due to the impending election. The hindrance is not only in lack of proposals (itself a burden that definitely needs to be shared), but the lack of votes ''is'' a problem when it comes to accepting and closing, as the numbers required do not change with activity levels. I think a significant concern for many people has been the number of cases that languish at times in the request stage, without so much as a decision to accept or reject. | |||
| ] presents at Evidence: '''This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Misplaced Pages'''. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=34739827&oldid=34738996#11_November_2005,]. This is an abuse of this User's Administrator capacity, is made in poor faith, is an attempt to lead/insert evidence whilst '''not''' becoming a party, and is a dishonestly described edit. This reveals the User's '''cabal''' membership and propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK. I request that this edit be adjudged as making of Musical Linguist a Party to this Arbitratation of me / or the denialist clerical revisionists in Misplaced Pages. Ends /finish ] 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For Camembert: I did anticipate that this might be a sensitive subject, and tried to "pull the sting" from my comments as much as possible. Part of my reasons for addressing it publicly was because I saw it as a systemic problem; it wasn't the inactivity of any one arbitrator that was causing problems, it was the collective inactivity of so many. Also, because the method for replacing arbitrators is now by election, this is somewhat inevitably a public issue. Nevertheless, I apologize for any hurt feelings - I know that the task of arbitration is already painful enough, and have heard precious little "whining" from any of you over the course of the year. --] 00:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I repeat my request that someone please insert, cuts and pastes, the dated sub-section as the Evidence still cannot be loaded by me. Thankyou] 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::: Umm, well, I suppose that no, the level of votes required does indeed not change with Arbitrator "activity", but it certainly does with Arbitrator listing of activity level, but that is a rather minor semantic difference. | |||
| ::: ] ] 12:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :After repeated effort the evidence is uploaded. ] 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but do you mean that the number of votes required to accept or close a case ''does'' change? Since unlike rulings, a majority of the active quorum is not required, I didn't know there was a basis for changing the four-vote threshold. --] 00:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == December elections == | |||
| ===Musical Linguist's response to accusations against her=== | |||
| I've decided to set the ball rolling for the oncoming elections; ] only at this stage, of course. | |||
| This page is on my watchlist, and when I read the beginning of his post, I was actually going to offer to upload evidence for him, if he had browser problems. Then I saw that his post was about me!!! | |||
| <br /> | |||
| ] ] 11:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| The diff that EffK supplies show that I made two additions to the ] page of his RfAr. My edit summary says: ''Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.)'' | |||
| == Admins + arbitrators == | |||
| I note with a certain amount of disappointment that the entire list of arbitrators, with one inactive exception, are also admins. While I realize that all too often assemblies will elevate the same people to all positions, I wonder if it is a good thing for the admin presence in the arbitration process to be so striking. It would also certainly seem to make any arbitration involving a user and an admin a lopsided exercise in pessimism. - ]<small> ''<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</small>]] 07:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Occasionally a wikipedian, while making a post to a talk page, deletes something added by a previous contributor. The deleted post could be a personal attack, a rant, a strong piece of POV pushing, or a completely off-topic post. Such deletions are, in my opinion, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Such removals often cause offense. | |||
| :I noticed the same thing, and find myself in agreement. --] 18:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| It can also happen that someone edits a talk page, and as well as the addition he has made, there is a deletion of a previous post from another contributor, or even from more than one. This happens completely against the intention of the editor, and there is no "edit conflict" warning. Sometimes the posts that get deleted were made several hours before. I have no idea why this happens, but have sometimes seen people getting very indignant because they think that another editor deleted their post ''on purpose''. | |||
| :The two are statistically associated (in other words, it's not a coincidence). Arbitrators should be long term wikipedia users whose conduct is above reproach; because these are the same criteria used for adminship, this automatically implies a selection bias in favor of admins. Put simply, good admins make good arbitrators. Saying that there should be exceptions for exception's sake is patently absurd. ] 18:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't believe I said anything about making exceptions, but perhaps some realization of this tendency in the process of choosing arbitrators, and encouraging some expansion of non-admin representation in the arb pool. If all judges were police officers, I think societies would generally consider that a problem. | |||
| ::Perhaps the recent introduction of admin elections will have this effect anyway. I simply hadn't seen it noted, and it seems clear that it is not entirely an absurd or obscure concern. At least, that is, among those who are not or have not been admins or arbitrators. | |||
| ::- ]<small> ''<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</small>]] 19:55, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::And to reiterate - your statement is patently absurd. We should '''not''' be giving non-admins preferential treatment when deciding who should sit on the arbcom, because, to wit, admins (who are choose on the basis of their good conduct and trustworthiness) are the ones who make the best arbitrators. What you are proposing is '''exactly''' what I said we should avoid - giving exceptions for the sake of giving exceptions. ] 23:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| In adding a comment to a talk page, ''I'' recently wiped out the post of the previous editor. I don't know how it happened. Luckily, the editor who came after me ] and just restored it without comment. More recently, Str1977 accidentally wiped out two posts while making his own. When it was drawn to his attention, he apologized and restored them. | |||
| :Admins aren't a monolithic group by any means; there's plenty of dissent and difference among them, and I very much doubt that an arbitrator who carries a sysop flag on his account is going to give a favorable ruling to the user who shares that flag, just because they both have it. Just look at ], for example. ]] ] 19:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would say that anecdotal evidence is only so meaningful, because there are probably those cases where some feel admin ganging-up occured. Regardless, I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion that there is always going to be that conflict, but it does seem to be a potential conflict of interest, and trying to assuage it before the fact would be better then trying to fix it afterwards if it does become a perceived imbalance in case outcomes. Already it seems some are presuming that I am suggesting that admins should never be arbitrators, and that's not what I said. Perhaps, though, the fact that an arbitrator, or even arbitrator candidate, is an admin, should be noted. - ]<small> ''<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki>''</small>]] 19:55, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| The edit history relevant to EffK's accusation against me will show the following diffs: | |||
| I was an arbitrator at a time when I was not an admin, and found it to make no difference. As Raul points out, most long-time contributors to Misplaced Pages who have gained the trust of the community are administrators. And since arbitrators are all long-time contributors who have gained the trust of the community, it should be no surprise that they are, for the most part, administrators. I don't think this matters. ] Co., ] 19:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| : ] (''Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.)'') | |||
| :I don't think it is a surprise that arbitrators are chosen from among those who were also willing to serve as administrators. I do wonder why so many arbitrators have kept their sysop privileges, it would seem natural to give them up while one serves on the committee. After all the committee can rely upon administrators to implement their decisions, and there is no shortage of administrators. There is no need for arbitrators to have to serve in two roles at once. Retention of the sysop powers by arbitrators gives the impression that one may be more motivated by accumulating powers as in Pokemon than in serving the community.--] 00:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : ] '''m''' | |||
| == Arbitrators and no conflict of interest == | |||
| : ] (''→Evidence presented by EffK - Removal of Reichskonkordat'') | |||
| I think I read somewhere on Misplaced Pages that any disputes can only be resolved by someone who is not involved in the dispute. In the same way as football referees, lawyers, etc. Is this correct? | |||
| : ] (''→03 January 2006'') | |||
| For example, suppose there was a dispute over the article for ]. There would be some people who would be more knowledgable on the subject, but there would also be some people who might be biased on coming to a final decision on any dispute. | |||
| : ] (''→Evidence presented by ] from his confrontation with FK'') | |||
| Maybe a better example might be a head of state, where the people from that state might feel passionate about how their head of state is portrayed. Would this therefore make a citizen from that state an unsuitable candidate for being an arbitrator? | |||
| A ''very'' brief look will show immediately that Robert McClenon added the words: ''This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Misplaced Pages'' at 20:37 on 10 January; that EffK added evidence for 30 August 2005 at 10:18 on 11 January; that Str1977 added to his own 10 January 2006 evidence seventeen minutes later at 10:35; that the two previous edits got swallowed up at the same time; and that I restored those deleted edits at 10:49, '''''with no additions of my own''''' and with an edit summary commenting on the fact that they had probably been deleted through a software bug. | |||
| --] 18:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| To reply to each of EffK's accusations: | |||
| :One would have to know the arbitrator's views on his head of state, which might be positive, negative, or apathetic—so I don't think it's possible to say definitively one way or another. If the arbitrator has expressed an opinion on the issue in dispute, though, it would be only proper for him to recuse himself. ]] ] 18:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #I did not use any administrator's powers in making that edit. | |||
| ::For the most part, arbitration is about user v user conflicts (IE, conflicts that occur on a large number of articles). Disputes involving individual articles generally don't make it to arbitration (I cannot think of a single one, although I'm sure someone will come along and cite a counterexample). ] 20:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| #My edit was made in good faith, as I was trying to undo the result of a software glitch, and was also trying to spare Str1977 a possible accusation of having wiped out the posts on purpose. | |||
| #I made no attempt to insert my own evidence, although to do so is not prohibited, and although I do have diffs that show EffK being less than civil to me, including one where, editing while not logged in, he seems to compare my promotion to adminship to Hitler's rise to power. I merely readded Robert McClenon's evidence '''''and EffK's own evidence''''' (which I think he should have noticed before making his latest accusation). | |||
| #There is nothing dishonest in my edit summary. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer and stated that '''''I was restoring''''' these two edits. But I assumed that it was sufficient, while reinserting them, simply to state that they had been deleted. | |||
| #I can't comment on the "cabal membership" statement, as I have no idea what he is talking about. | |||
| #I do not have a "propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK". I have never made any kind of attack on him; nor have I felt any wish to do so. I have reverted some of his editing, though not frequently; and, at a time when I was extremely busy with college work, I have taken a lot of time to respond to his concerns, possibly adding to his frustration, which I regret. I am not involved in this case, other than that I was a witness some months ago to the way he filled up the Benedict XVI talk page with several extremely long posts which had nothing to do with editing the article. | |||
| EffK, you have made utterly false accusations of abuse of administratorship and dishonest edit summary, among other things. You have also taken up over half an hour of my time in responding (and you may note from my user page and talk page that I am very busy at the moment and am trying to contribute less to Misplaced Pages until the end of the month). I will, nevertheless, accept your apology if you choose to make one, and continue to wish you well, regardless. ] ] 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Spamming for votes == | |||
| ==Yhis is a work== | |||
| Should various "welcome" messages to newbies which are signed "Sam Spade wants you to vote" (hyperlinked to the ArbCom election page see, ] for an example) be considered spamming for votes? Is it acceptable conduct for a candidate during an election period?] 18:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I am very offended. ] 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :New users can't vote anyways. I think you have to of been here 90 days or some such. If it said "vote for sam spade" I think that would be OK too, but due to comments left on my talk page by UC and others, I made a compromise to presenting a neutral suggestion to vote. I am not the only user w an election related signature, BTW. lst had a signature relating to the U.S. elections as well, if I remember correctly. Anyways, I hope it can be taken into account that andy has not spoken to me personally in regards to this issue, and has a long history of wasting time unsuccessfully trying to bother me (yes, you did manage to annoy me in the past Andy, but that was early on, and before I formed an understanding of what you do here). ] ] ]] 20:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ===EffK answer to Musical Linguist Protestations=== | |||
| Are new users automatically blocked from voting (ie cannot access the voting page) or are they simply disqualified? If the latter than your signature creates a make work project for the election administrators. | |||
| Yes indeed, you ''should'' have been more careful to show that you had not written that of McClenon's, but it appeared that you had. Your name was up as the editor of the diff. I can hardly be blamed for seeing your statement as your statement. And, Yes, you have shown bad faith by joining in attack on me at his earlier Rfc, another Straw man attack to deflect from the sourced truth. You were in bad faith in estimating that I have a personal grudge against this Church. And You remain in bad faith for never answering your reduction of 30 odd priests to one or was it zero in the Ferns Scandal, and you remain in bad faith in not accounting for your removal(as my POV/error) of the scandalous Irish government deal struck with the Church for 100 million(now 900 in costs to them), and you remain in bad faith for removing the ''priestly rebellion'', after one priest went public.By demanding source after the entire was in the media, you are denying my good faith and provoking further identification of my whereabouts. You answered jesuitically concerning the papal secrecy clause, and distorted or removed NPOV I used to balance a disgusting Article. I also remind you that you came as close to blackmailing-setting a condition for '''your''' answering re that Sex Abuse as it was possible to approach. You made me apologise to a massive over-reaction in the example of Str1977 German forebear. I did not say that his forebear tried to kill mine, and succeeded, actually, I said he might have had some centre party Connection, as some motive for Str1977 protecting the Centre Article, and his over-reaction(typically Strawman) to contemporary widespread german political memory and shame. I do still believe that Str1977 must have a political connection to the early party, or to the present little new Centre party factions rearing their heads in Germany now. I ''had'' to accede to that pressure, but you didn't keep to your bargain, and complete your answer at ]. | |||
| As for motivations, it's fallacious reasoning to criticise an argument by attacking the motivations of the person making it; that's just a form of ad hominem. One should look at the facts of the situation, ie that you are a candidate and that you are posting messages on the pages of people you do not know encouraging them to vote - the facts are the same regardless of my motivations. As for the US election that analogy would be of relevance if Misplaced Pages were running the US election and/or if lst were a candidate. I don't think your signature would be a problem if you weren't a candidate but you are and so it looks like campaigning even if you are telling people to "vote" instead of to vote for you. | |||
| I believe if I had to I could show several assumption of bad faith edits, aimed at Strawman demolition of verifiable source. You have consistently assumed my bad faith, and Str1977's veracity, and gone and chosen not to accept asny conditioning of this your this response through my sourced justifications at many nercessary discussions, therefore I do not accept your denial of knowledge of the '''denialist clerical revisionism cabal'''. You have voluntarily assisted the cabal many times despite my good faith verifiability, and this effort of yours in Evidence shows you are still partisan and willing to be so, '''or you should have said in the diff-tag that you had been requested to assist'''. If you are completely naive, then I truly am sorry, for you, for my assumption of intelligence, and for Misplaced Pages being so populated. I will show diffs here if you desire. | |||
| As for why I didn't raise this on your talk page first a) I knew it would make no difference - you wouldn't be influenced to change your behavioru b) I didn't need the aggravation.] 23:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I will clearly accept that I jumped to a natural conclusion that you wrote that which you were visible as writing. I believe all the rest shows me your bias and poor faith,preceding your ''Adminship''which I regret you and your friends displaying. I therefore make no personal attack in recognising bias through assumption of bad faith. As you know I asked repeatedly for you to account for your removals. You should not have joined with the others in the cabal, and you are wrong in so helping Str1977 at this trial and everywhere, and you should not say you know nothing of Hitler and then show otherwise by minutiae corrections and voting off clearly verifiable material from Misplaced Pages. You should not whitewash the sex Abuse page, and you should still explain what gives you the right to display bad faith to me in qualifying my contribution as no more than POV/unsourced ill-written error . Apart from all that- I do not and did not look for you to join in the bad faith attack made on my integrity, and I suggest to you that, if I remain here, which is dependant on a guilt being cast at your fellow catholic-biased editors, that you will be able to renew your un-biased capacities by distancing yourself from such faith-based editing policy. Go back and undo the damage you mischievously made at Sex Abuse, badly tagged, and never accounted for. '''Do not abuse my intentions by stating even to me that I am an anti-catholic.''' I assert that the papacy , as sourced, did what it did, and the logic is that it was hypocrisy. Logic is universal, not mine alone, actually. I source my contentions, and you and your friends rubbish this source against WP principles. As to your waste of half an hour- You have contributed to my waste of ''more than half a year'', and against clear Misplaced Pages principle of ]. In being so against this principle and the assumption of good faith, you have joined in cabal wrong. Apart from that I am sorry, and now I equally list this under your response at my Trial. | |||
| == Election and right to vote == | |||
| I wrote yesterday a ], complaining about the fact that I was not given the right to vote for the ArbCom election. Leaving apart that the request of having first edited a page at least 90 days before placing a vote is quite unusual for Misplaced Pages matters, anyway this should be applied to the person, regardless of username changes and late registrations: I mean, if I can state that I edited my first page earlier than 90 days ago, my statement should be accepted as I can prove that. By the way, the software automated check cannot take in account the ] and ]. This means that, in this case, wikipedians' votes are processed ''literally'' and not according with un unfair criterium. TY, ] 21:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I note that you thus far do '''not''' wish to enter the Evidence pages- even though you know that I have now used up my permitted defensive diff-count, and therefor you have a virtual open-goal. Considering your previous eagerness to combine against me on all VfD's and RfC, and generally, this is inconsistant. I itemised my witness to your bias at your vote for Administrator, and it still holds several truths. I would say to all rational persons at Misplaced Pages that you Musical Linguist are a part of their faith revisionism problem, if Misplaced Pages is to become a respectable source. | |||
| == Arbitration Committee ? Democracy == | |||
| EffK 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is about democracy. As it is about democracy Arbitration should not try to solve disputes. Let the users that read particular article decide! | |||
| :] 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry, I think I missed some of that. Could you repeat? – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In a case of a dispute, survey is not a solution. Election is the most possible democratic solution and Misplaced Pages users should decide. Threshold could be either time to vote or number of voters. | |||
| ==This is a work== | |||
| As in any elections, interested parties should try to explain their position and if needed educate possible voters. That is The Purpose of Misplaced Pages – to educate. Elections are best way to check how well Misplaced Pages serves its duty. | |||
| I am very , extremely offended. ] 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : No, Misplaced Pages is about creating a freely available encyclopædia from a neutral point of view for the benefit of all mankind. Democracy may be one of the tools we use in certain ways to get there, but it is not what we're "all about"; the project comes before anything else. | |||
| : ] ] 03:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin == | |||
| :: | |||
| ::Each encyclopaedia's goal is to educate people. Why? The more general population know, the harder it will be for anyone to rule them with lies. Knowledge = Power => People's knowledge = Democracy. | |||
| :: As encyclopaedia is about democracy, why not use democracy to establish neutral point? What is the advantage of having Arbitration above voting? Someone knows better than the whole population? In that case, he/she should educate others and put his/hers knowledge to the test. | |||
| :: ] | |||
| Hello, I am requesting help with a particular admin here that has stated I could be banned for what my personal position is on discussing matters with other Wikipedians. For some background information and I also want to clearly state my problem. I joined Misplaced Pages in December of 2005 in response to the actions taken concerning the wiki article "wehatetech" or "we hate tech." The article has been pulled several times and I do understand that once it's voted on somehow, not exactly clear on that, it's removed from the encyclopedia. I am NOT here to fight for that particular article. i understand that there is a guideline for articles, BUT my observation and opinion is that the rules were not followed properly in the process of deletion. Why am I still here? Well, in a nutshell, I have seen people removed from the site or blocked for various reasons I also do not agree with, but it up to those individual people to address their removal. I decided to stay in order to provide constructive criticism of the deletion process and to add another viewpoint to the issue. I feel improperly judged, reading from responses to my post, a "one issue candidate" and have been threatened with removal from the site, being a sock-puppet for "we hate tech" and accused of "cluttering" talk pages. | |||
| Well, at some level (with regards to article content) the majority does not decide what is true and false and right and wrong. ] is not subject to majority rule. But the Arbitration Committee is not primarily concerned with article content matters, it's generally involved with user behaviour disputes. And when it comes to these sorts of disputes, a large community vote is suboptimal. Tell me, why should I as an average Misplaced Pages user have to worry about the details of Johnny Q Foobar's fight with User:Swik? Why should I have to spend time reviewing evidence against both sides? I really don't think the average citizen is that interested in going over the specifics with a fine tooth comb. Therefore, if we leave the matter open to a community-wide vote, we run two risks: first, that the average Wikipedian is too busy doing Important Things (like editing articles) to participate in this dispute, in which case it comes down to a popularity contest of whoever can muster the most friends to vote on the matter... and if ordinary, neutral people vote, they're unlikely to be able to make an informed decision, and the process becomes "whoever has the best rhetoric wins". This is suboptimal, at best. It also is more likely to polarize the community, breeding division and enmity. And in controversial cases, there will '''never''' be a sufficient majority to meet our standard rules for a "consensus", and you can be assured that people will add fifty dozen options to the choices about what to do to a user, and it's vulnerable to sock puppets, and suffers from all sorts of problems. A proper judicial system is not vulnerable to these sorts of abuse, is able to produce a clear yes-or-no decision, and helps ensure that the people making the decision will be making an ''informed'' decision. To bring an analogy: You don't see any democratic nation making their criminal justice a matter for the popular vote, do you? It just doesn't work very well. -] ] 17:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| My purpose is not to clutter the site or be on any type of mission to tear down Misplaced Pages. I wish to understand why certain things happen here and hope to add thoughtful insight and more information to topics in order to resolve an issue. I do feel like I am being pushed around and generally really upset with the whole process with a select group of individuals either working behind the scenes or posting on my talk page. Two Wikipedians have stood out in this whole situation, ] and admin ]. I have had several exchanges with both, with Haikupoet moving one comment and then deleting my response to because I was under the impression that it was deleted. My response comment was then deleted, which resulted in the blocking ]. The block happened due to a supposed "legal threat" by "Zoe" which has now threatened me with the same. It's not MY forum I am promoting. I am a member of such forum and website http://www.wehatetech.com and I am NOT trying to promote in the first place. | |||
| : Those interested in article will vote. They will write article, if needed. They will improve article. They will give another view. They are important. | |||
| I AM promoting that fellow Wikipedians discuss issues and not stomp over other postings by others. I am being totally honest and upfront. I do not have a hidden agenda. Have I been totally innocent? No, there are two comments / edits on my behalf that broke regulation. i was dealt with in a proper manner by those admins and I am thankful for that. If further investigation yields that I be removed from Misplaced Pages then so be it, as long as I am adequately told as to such infractions. i only wish to resolve this issue. i have deleted none of my post and will not edit any of my post to make myself appear in a different light. Everything is available through my user history. | |||
| :By the way, planting judges is something known, isn't it? In the same way, one person could populate whole ArC. Thousand fake logins, twenty candidates, who will stop that? | |||
| Thank you. ] 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Re: criminal justice - haven't you noticed that just those cases that get media attention are important. Why? Because public does count. Re: suboptimal – Romans had optimal government for people that like “optimal” solutions. Rulers were called Dictators. | |||
| :Greetings, Kmac. Your complaint would be more appropriate at ]. If you move it there, you're more likely to get a response. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] | |||
| == Arbitration Committee Clerk's Office == | |||
| :: The Romans had several different forms of government. See ], ], and the ]. In future, please research your tenuous analogies more thoroughly. Thanks. ] 23:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| A proposal by ] has been made for a Clerks' Office for the Arbitration Committee. See ] for the proposal and ] for discussion. ] | ] 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I believe you thought: ]. | |||
| :] | |||
| == Active date == | |||
| ]: '''''Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, contrary to what some people foolishly say.''''' ] 01:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Since the list changed based on Jimbo's announcement, should the date change too? I'd fix it myself but I got edit conflicts twice, perhaps someone who is fixing things already could do it too? ++]: ]/] 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Where is Jimbo's announcement? ] ] 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Recommended: ] This discussion proves that Misplaced Pages is Democracy, only way to make true neutral point! Just some needs to read how to discuss - ]. Not knowing how to discuss doesn't help editing an article. | |||
| :] | |||
| ::Mailing list. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==New arbitrators== | |||
| :::Should the page now say that each tranche has ''five'' members? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fixed :) ] 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What the...how come the new people are already active? I thought it wasn't supposed to be until Feb. 1. ] 06:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Where does it say that? ] 07:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know, but that's what I remembered. ] 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, the intent was to have the new ArbCom instated and active by feb 1st at the latest, thus giving people (by which I mean Jimbo) some time for consideration after the election ended. There's no harm in doing it faster than that, ] a bureaucracy. ]]] 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == e-mails on active list? == | |||
| Hello, Arbcom. What would you think, on the main arbcom page, of having, instead of or in addition to those (somewhat confusing) e-mail addresses (member at whatever.com), something like this: ]. It looks better, it's actually marginally ''more'' spam-proof, and in my view it would be easier to use. If you're interested, I'm happy to add or switch them myself. Thanks. ] 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's probably a good idea. ] 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done. All but yours, Raul, since you're listed as "away." ] 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Kelly Martin's resignation == | |||
| Kelly Martin resigned. A logged in user, and then an anon-IP, changed the text to say that Kelly Martin either was unelected or resigned "during an unsuccessful reelection bid". This is both inaccurate and mean-spirited. I'm not a big KM supporter -- I voted against her, in fact. But this is just childish. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : For the record, I don't consider this a particularly big deal, and I am emphatically not that IP. ]]] 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: (Glad to hear that. I don't mean to say that your single change was necessarily mean-spirited, but the repeated reverting is.) – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Filiocht == | |||
| {{User|Filiocht}} has not edited Misplaced Pages since December 22, 2005. Would this mean that s/he should be listed as either "away" or "inactive"? --] 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Inactive, but not yet. Let's give him a little more time. ] 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::How in the world did he do so well without even being present? He shouldn't even be given a seat unless he shows up really soon to claim it (say Feb.?). Move one down the list for whoever was passed over in favor of Jayjg. ] 05:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's for Jimbo to decide. ] 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Has anyone e-mailed him? ] 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Several people, last I heard; no response, though. ] ] 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removed ] PA == | |||
| I removed ] PA per ]. It insulted 90% of arb parties. Even if true, this message is not helpful and may further damage the process. --] 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've restored my comments. ] is controversial, and your use of it in this circumstance even more so. Please do not do that again. ] (]) 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank-you for the feedback. --] 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration on Another Wiki == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Er, OK. What should I read up on between now and Jan 1st? - ] 23:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I suggest that all new arbitrators choose several decided cases -- perhaps a couple of cases where severe consequences were imposed and a couple of cases where little was done -- and take the time to read the evidence pages, the discussions, and the ultimate decisions (along with arbitrator comments). In this way I think you will get a sense of what precedents have been set, and also (I do hope) you will determine what changes you hope to make to the way the AC does business. I would encourage anyone taking my advice to look at some of the most difficult cases we've had, in order to consider what other options might have been wiser -- the LaRouche case and the Rex case stick in my mind as most difficult and the ones most given to being second-guessed, but I'm sure there are many others. Learn from the (possible) mistakes of the past. :-) Or else discover that we all were a lot brighter and better than we were given credit for being. ;-) Hopefully that's of some help, David. :-) ] 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I am involved in a dispute on Wiktionary. Does the arbitration committee handle requests for issues on Wiktionary and, if so, where should I place a request for arbitration and / or mediation there? | |||
| == Terms == | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| I made up ], in case anyone's wondering over who got which term when, as it were. | |||
| ] ] |
] 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Technically, there's nothing in the ] to prohibit us from taking the case, but that's almost certainly an oversite. I don't think we have standing to hear a case on another wiki. ] 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Is there a special page for requests for CheckUser permission? == | |||
| ==Vote Tallies== | |||
| ] says complete results will be posted there, but as of today it still has a list of candidates. Will a tally of how many votes each candidate received be posted there? ] 17:14, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Umm... the total number of votes is already up (520), as are the percentages. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how many votes each candidate did or did not get. ] 23:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::What the newly re-elected arbitrator with the worringly short temper failed to say was that the results are available at ], which due to some organizational or administrative failure, is ''not'' linked from helpful places such as ], or ]. No, it's not all that easy to find unless you're heavily involved in the process. Yes, it is disappointing that someone who so eagerly chooses to be insulting rather than helpful was just re-elected to the arbitration committee. - ] ''<small><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small>'']] 23:18, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to request CheckUser permission, but I can't seem to find any particular place to ask. ] 21:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==How to complain an administrator?== | |||
| :, there is no such page. ] 21:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello I would like to know if I can complain an administrator who has made a number of controversial reverts and requests for deletion and is being rude in discussions? | |||
| ::Well, then, I would like to ask the ArbCom for CheckUser access, because I would like to get involved in the community at large rather than the relatively small area I contribute in now. I have had extensive experience as a board moderator, so I know the IP tracing and identification process, as well as what is valid as similar IP and what is not. Therefore, however slim the chance may be, I would like to be considered for CheckUser. Thank you. ] 00:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Vacancy to be filled? == | |||
| :Please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. You may take a look at ]. --]] 06:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Is there any discussion about this somewhere that I'm missing? - ]]] 05:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was wondering the same thing. ] 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Code of conduct for administrators == | |||
| ] | |||
| I am interested in a code of conduct for administrators in their use of sysop powers. I draw a distinction between administrators making mistakes about facts or interpretation, and those who abused their powers for personal reasons, for themselves or people or positions they favored. Are there any arbitration decisions which set a precedent for delineating distinctions such as this? If it isn't already, I hope to work for a policy of zero tolerance based on this distinction.--] 00:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:02, 9 March 2023
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Ed Poor persistently disruptive on Qur'an abuse page -- surrealistically high number of page moves
Admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) has executed a ridiculously high number of page moves, and has been generally disruptive, at the page currently titled Qur'an desecration by US military.
He has obvious political motivations for the pattern of disruption and title confusion he has sown on this page in recent days. (Check out the titles of his edit summaries on this page if you doubt my assessment of this.) Please. please review the history of this page and consider taking appropriate administrative action. BrandonYusufToropov 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here are examples of what I mean:
FROM TALK PAGE HISTORY
- (cur) (last) 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (Was it desecration? - That's the anti-US point of view, all right. So let's describe as such.)
FROM ARTICLE HISTORY
- (cur) (last) 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (moved Pentagon "admission" down to 4th paragraph, as intro to "critics continued belief" - could be moved up)
- (cur) (last) 20:06, 27 May 2005 Ed Poor (anti-US POV needs to be labeled. Don't put the argument in the text of the article as if you wanted Misplaced Pages to endorse that reasoning)
... not to mention the avalanche of page moves, resulting in confusion and perpetual redirect challenges for those trying to actually find the article ...
- Just bear in mind that the Edit summaries and other references I made to the page title were to the old title of Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay (which I moved to Qur'an desecration by US guards and which Brandon helpfully tweaked by moving it to Qur'an desecration by US military). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I've known Uncle Ed for a good several months, and, on my watch, I can report that all of his decisions, while sometimes dramatic, have been well-thought out and in accord with Misplaced Pages policies.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Karl Scherer
Hello, it has been suggested that ArbCom make a ruling concerning the behaviour of Karl Scherer -User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs
- 202.37.72.100, and
- 210.55.230.17, and
- 210.55.230.18, and
- 210.55.230.20, and
- 213.157.5.222, and
- 219.89.37.58, and
- 222.152.25.248, and
- various unknown sockpuppets with edit histories potentially going back 2 years with probably about 200 edits each (assumption based on editing pattern of above IP addresses).
Over 100 articles (about 200 including the images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Zillions games). There is also a current VfD at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer concerning an additional 8, and at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/EvenMoreKarlScherer concerning a further two, as well as the related closed VfD at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer, and two open related ones at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Fox and geese and Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Zillions of Games.
It was suggested in one of these VfDs that a formal ruling be made about such forms of original research, which was mixed in with extreme amounts of advertising spam. These articles were created over a 2 year period, and where only discovered when I was apparently more suspicious than others about the motives of an editor (Karl Scherer) whose most recent creation appeared in New Pages. The length of time that these edits were not caught appears to have lead to Zillions of Games jumping from 602 non-obvious-wikipedia-mirror hits in google to 60,000. Some sort of formal mechanism for discovering such things sooner is probably wanted. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
CULTURAL TERRORISM Ongoing on Portuguese section
Please guys,
Brazillian activists have taken control over the Portuguese section. They revert anything that isn't written in their own 'version' of Brazillian Portuguese - that no one else in the world uses and is not officially accepted. They eliminate lots of Portuguese (from Portugal, Europe and world) content. They actively ban and persecute users, lie to the superior Wiki managers, and do all censorship possible to avoid contact from Portuguese (and other countries speaking Portuguese) with the rulers of Wiki. As of now they completely hijacked the Portuguese section of Wiki.
For some unexplainable reason instead of creating a BR section for their own special needs, they insist on hijacking, controlling, and reverting everything in the PT section to their own whims. Most non-Brazilian users have no stopped contributing, enjoying and using Wiki - because what's there, IS NOT Portuguese. It's as if Catalan speakers hijacked the Spanish zone and modified it to their own version claiming it was 'Spanish'.
It should be said, that Brazillian Portuguese is WILDLY different than Portuguese and not simple "minor" changes as they falsely claim!
I do not know if Brazilians are ashamed of being 'Brazilians' and thus insist on hiding behind the 'Portuguese' mask, i find no other explanation for this bizarre insistance.
Brazillian is totaly different from Portuguese. They use a totally different verb tense. Hundreds of words that mean nothing in Portuguese (nor have any linguistic basis) are used. Incorrect - you'd fail in any Portuguese class in any Portuguese speaking country BUT Brazil - Portuguese is used so frequently it makes most articles WIDLY unreadable.
It's not that they used different versions, i'll explain: They started slowly using wrong grammar versions because the people was very poor, and now, because their government has not control over the country, and educations is extremely lacking, they found it 'cheaper' to just maintain the wild grammar errors. Again, the errors are rampant, not minor, at all.
Sirs... this is totally affecting our ability to use the section dedicated to our own language...! THEY IMMIDEATELY REVERT, CANCEL, CENSOR any attempt to use Portuguese!
Entire changes and articles have been already wiped out by them simply because it wasn't in "their" version.
The whole editing section is in places UNREADABLE and completely ununderstandable to non-Brazillian Portuguese speakers - ie, all of them all over the world. They use words that mean nothing in Portuguese, in the Wiki UI, people reading it, from Africa, have no idea what it means!
This is NOT a 50\50 partnership. ALL main pages have now been reverted to Brazillian only, locked, and reverted no matter what minor change \ comment is done. Most Portuguese, or simply outside of Brazil, users have been coimpletely driven out of Wiki, this can't be right.
They've been feeding the impression that Brazillian and Portuguese are as equal as English in the UK and America, THIS IS UTTERLY FALSE! The differences are huge, to the point that ocasionally you can't even understand what they are trying to say \ talking about.
Most weird, is the fact that they seem driven by some internal frustration of the tragedies inside their own country, and are completely using this as some strange form of Nationalistic rabidly jingoistic movement to assert themselves. They are now publishing articles of political activism about Brazilian Nationalism as if they were Wiki definitions... 8O
I do not whish in any way that they don't use their own version. But right now they are stopping us from using ours. Heck, we are the ones which are Portuguese and i can't even understand some of the words in articles claiming to be "Portuguese" here in Misplaced Pages, because they are not Portuguese words at all - nevermind the constant verbal, pronoum differences that occur in _every_ single sentence...
No one seems to do anything about this.
Am i to believe what other Portuguese partners have told me, and to just give up on Misplaced Pages?
Then it's truly sad, because it means Wiki is not a place for cultural exchange, but for cultural terrorism. Maybe they in south America are used to this, but i, absolutely am not.
Most of the threads from Portuguese and non-Brazillian members i checked were outside Wiki, because simply put people no longer ontribute here because they now the Brazillians will be banned, censor, rejected. This is wrong!
There is currently a thread on this subject on the PT section, the admins are all brazillian, the pages are all written in brazillian, the UI is all in brazillian, and every dissenting opinion\article is removed at once. What the heck?
--> ]
The title translated is, "versions of Portuguese language". What versions, if all we see is their own peculiar one? All others are shot down in flames. This truly is nationalistic fascism at play.
Should i just give up and forget the freedom to use and enjoy my language? I have to be honest as is, the brazillian content is totally useless, to me, to most Portuguese i know, and it surely isn't right for a child to get there and see words that to her mean nothing and negate the education she gets in school - not to mention the barrage of grammar errors the brazillian governement, like pretty much everything else, seems impotent to resolve, solve, and educate in its own anarchic country :(, and occur literally in every sentence. It's nearly unreadable and it sure isn't educational. Sad, sad, sad :(
At bare minumum: Seperate these totally different ways of using Portuguese, one is cannibalizing the other.
Wait a moment
There are a couple of things that should be noted in this rant:
- Brazilian Portuguese is not a wrong version of Portuguese. It is not the fruit of neglect due to poor and uneducated people influencing the language, but actually, the influence of the greater number of immigrants that came from nations other than Portugal, along with some dialects absorbed from indigenous inhabitants since colonial times.
- While you may consider what is written to be grammatical errors, it is not that way for Brazilian Portuguese speakers. One could say your Portuguese is totally wrong because it derived from a completely wrong manner of writing latin. That would not be a fair thing to say.
- It is unfair to mention the little portuguese children not being able to read the article, because the other way around the little brazilian children would not being able to read the article. While you can't favor one over another, out of the 220 million people that speak portuguese in the world, 180 are brazillian, or 81%. I guess as it is Misplaced Pages is able to appeal to the greatest number of people this way, democratically, as I would put it. Either way, as it is, it facilitates your prized cultural exchange more than the other way around.
- The arguments were not presented with a neutral point of view. The tone is generally offensive, and there are unprecedent and unjustified claims, such as implying Brazilians are ashamed of themselves, that South America is used to cultural terrorism, that the brazilian government is impotent to resolve everything.
- I wouldnt deny that the portuguese wiki is brazilian centered, and that there might be articles that sprouted from nationalism. Nevertheless, it is still Misplaced Pages and people strive to maintain a neutral point of view. While some might complain about it being brazilian centered, the portuguese language, contemporarily, IS brazilian centered. Also, that rant sounded somewhat nationalistic from the Portugal side, considering the way that Portugal's portuguese was considered "right" and that at every opportunity there was a subjective insult or attempt to diminish Brazil and Brazilian Portuguese. You also did not sign your comments.
I would request for anyone reading this to be moderate on the subject, as the way it was originally presented was extremely radical, and perhaps unreasonable. PHF 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- (Note: for simplicity, I will use 'Portuguese' for Portuguese-from-Portugal and 'Brazilian' for Portuguese-from-Brazil. Portuguese and Brazilian, without quotes, will be taken to mean People-from-Portugal and People-from-Brazil)
- I think that the problem User#1 perceives rests mostly on the URL: pt.wikipedia.org.
- Online, just like you expect ".uk" sites to be in the Queen's English and ".aus" sites to favour Australian speech, you assume returns located at ".pt" URLs to be written in 'Portuguese', and those stationed at ".br" to be in 'Brazilian' - thus allowing you to make your choice of what to read.
- 'Portuguese' and 'Brazilian' are, indeed, very different languages - not like UK-English and US-English are different, but rather like Strine differs from UK-English differ, or Ebonics differs from US-English. Neither is "better" or "superior" or "more correct": they simply have different grammatical rules and vocabularies - 'Brazilian' breaks many rules in the 'Portuguese' grammar and I assume that 'Portuguese', likewise, breaks many rules in the 'Brazilian' grammar.
- A 'Portuguese' speaker will look at an article written in 'Brazilian' and find spelling or verb-tense "mistakes" which, in 'Portuguese', are unacceptable at Primary School level, and attempt to "correct" them. The same will happen to a 'Brazilian' speaker reading a 'Portuguese' article.
- Moreover, where vocabulary is concerned, hundreds of 'Brazilian' words are unknown/unacceptable in 'Portuguese', and vice-versa.
- These facts, taken together, just lead to misunderstandings and to the feeling that you are reading a terribly badly-written article, if it's not in the version of the language you were taught.
- Therefore, it would be good form to have pt.wikipedia for the 'Portuguese' language and br.wikipedia for the 'Brazilian' language, as is the norm in the great majority of websites in the language in general.
- (Im/Partiality: Though I'm a native Portuguese-English speaker, I never use the current pt.wikipedia, much less edit it. One of the reasons I always prefer the English article over the Portuguese article is the fact that, yes, it is very hard to read an article which is not in "my version" of the Portuguese language.) 83.132.98.35 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to add that, although all users have the right to their opinion, the rules for the community state that "if an article is initially written in one version, unless major changes (50%) are made by someone speaking the other version, the original version must be kept". And, being Portuguese, I find Brazilian Portuguese "ugly", but one must remember the other way around. I refuse to write in Brazilian Portuguese (or should I say, I don't know how to!), but if I contribute to a Brazilian-Portuguese article, I'm counting that someone will change it for me. The same way I'll change Brazilian->European in a European Portuguese Article.
- As for little children, it's a false issue. If they can read SMS-Portuguese language, they can perfectly read the alternate version of Portuguese. What we (grown-ups) are afraid to say, but really think, is that we are afraid our children will not learn the version we consider "correct... Muukalainen 12:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Tacky
I decided to return to this matter just to say how incredibly tacky and incompetent the Arb Com's handling of this matter has been. I found out that this matter had been dropped (who knows when) after inquiring about it on someone's talk page. I received absolutely no notice. And, to date, neither, apparently, has User:Wareware. This has been a colossal waste of my time and of the people who were kind and concerned enough to render assistance in this matter.
To my way of thinking, the Arb Com dropped the ball -- in more ways than one. At least you didn't require me to reformat the copious info presented in the RfC for this process. The singular good thing is Pharlap's wasted time and effort in compiling an utterly meaningless assemblage of completely unrelated and, again, out-of-context bullcrap -- as if my comments anywhere on this website have anything at all to do with the racist Wareware's Tourette's-like comportment.
I can't say this experience has inspired any confidence or respect on my part for the arbitration process. Frankly, you guys suck. *x* deeceevoice 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Wareware left Misplaced Pages months ago, and has not to date returned. What use would it have been to take any action against someone has already left? If he does return at some later date, it can be dealt with then. Ambi 07:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ambi, are you deliberately missing my point? After several members of the Arb Com voted to consider the matter, no one on the Arb Com ever bothered to notify us that the matter had been dropped. In fact, there still has been no formal notification to that effect posted to Wareware's talk page. I repeat: tacky and utterly incompetent. The Arb Com still sux.deeceevoice 15:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Don't be difficult. If you bring a case against someone who has left, what exactly do you expect? The Committee's job is to fix problems, not "right wrongs".
- James F. (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't be presumptuous and patronizing -- especially when you don't know what you're talking about. I don't need to be schooled on the function of the Arb Com. The Arb Com voted, then served notice that it was considering the case and asked for submissions of evidence, knowing full well that Wareware was no longer around. When it suddenly reversed itself, it notified no one. The Arb Com in this matter was incompetent and inefficient and lacking in the most rudimentary common courtesy. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't worth squat. *x* deeceevoice 06:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly, I could care less. We're here to deal with users who continue to interfere with the writing of an encyclopedia. Wareware had ceased to do that by ceasing to edit Misplaced Pages, thus we have no reason to continue to intervene. You can be as insulting as you like, and you can act like the guy you're complaining about as much as you like, but I don't think anyone here will be too fussed unless he does return. Ambi 08:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Uh, I think you mean you couldn't care less? :p Well, my dear, that much is evident in the Arb Com's tacky mishandling of the matter -- which is precisely my point. LOL Incompent. Rude. Inefficient. Worthless. Further, calling the Arb Com on its gross mishandling of this matter is hardly on par with stalking someone around the web site, spewing vile, racist venom. Or, did you even bother to read the complaint? (A strictly rhetorical question. Given your comments thus far, I'd hardly trust you to understand the difference even if you had.) deeceevoice 12:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think you need to step back and examine WP:NPA along with the ArbCom's history and mandate. Once a user has left Misplaced Pages, there is no sense in overly bureaucratizing a point which is moot. Should Wareware return, of course the case should be reopened. But why bother just to make a WP:POINT? --FCYTravis 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Then, perhaps the Arb Com should "step back and examine" its actions in this matter. Why, then, did it vote to take the matter under consideration and then ask for evidence? And then why did it not follow through? And when it changed its course of action, why then did it not even bother to notify the involved parties? I repeat: Incompetent. Inefficient. Tacky. deeceevoice 04:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to add my 2 cents: Raul's 9th law of wikipedia - Being on the Arbitration Committee is the most thankless job on Misplaced Pages. It is absolutely impossible to do it such that people are happy with you. If you are doing a bad job, people complain; if you are doing a good job, people don't notice (or sometimes even then complain). All of your actions are examined under a microscope. People expect you to be the Oracle of all truth - to work miracles no matter how complicated the case, no matter how how bad the evidence, no matter how hostile and stubborn the disputants. And of course, there are the accusations of cabalism. →Raul654 23:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Excuses. For the record, I expected no such thing. What I did expect was a minimal degree of thoroughness and courtesy, and the Arb Com proved pitiably incapable of delivering either. I mean, how hard is it to drop someone a note? That someone on the Arb Com would even try to defend/excuse such bumbling ineptitude demonstrates just how worthless the Arb Com is. deeceevoice 02:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- The point is that people will complain regardless of how well we do our {voluntary, unpleasant, thankless} job - a point you have proven quite thoroughly. →Raul654 02:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
- No. The point is that people will complain in light of how poorly you do your job -- or, should I say when you fail to do your job? :p deeceevoice 04:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is not our job to notify anybody but people directly affected by ArbCom rulings of anything other than the opening of cases (and even that is limited to people involved in the case). If you want to track the progress of a particular case, then put the respective case pages on your watchlist and/or add {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to your user page. Now stop bitching. --mav 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The page was on my watch list, and I was directly involved in the matter. There was nothing -- absolutely nothing -- that indicated the case had been dropped. People like me won't bitch if the Arb Com does its job. Incompetents! *x* deeceevoice 14:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Resignations
Some of the arbitrators (Delirium, Grunt, Ambi) have indicated that they wish to resign (according to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee), but they are unsure how they would be replaced, or what the mechanism was.
Having thought about this, wouldn't it be the case that the next person (in this case Fennec, Mirv, Cecropia) on the list at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 becomes their replacement? ~~~~ 14:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Arbcom seems to have become very slow because of lack of active members, so they do need to be replaced. However I would be totally against just pulling the highest losers into position (presumably after having checked their continued willingness to serve). We should have a by-election. David | Talk 14:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Is that a Misplaced Pages procedure, or just UK government? ~~~~ 14:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Don't know exactly why you ask the question—but as far as I know there is no set procedure, and I'm making a suggestion. I think the principle should be that users only get to be arbitrators by being elected to the post. David | Talk 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I do believe we should put it up to a vote (i.e. ask who wish to be candidates and vote amongst them). Soon, too - this is important. Radiant_>|< 19:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Suffice it to say, we (the committee) and Jimbo have been discussing this for several weeks and we should have an announcement soon. →Raul654 20:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
How soon is soon ? ~~~~ 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure -- I had hoped to have an announcement out by July 1, but that's a non issue now. →Raul654 02:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
They really need to sort it out ASAP, as the WP:RFAR page is getting swamped, and it looks like there are only 3 arbitrators actually giving initial opinions on whether to hear cases, and it needs 4 to confirm anything. ~~~~ 12:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's happening. Ambi 13:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- The commitee's position on the matter has been settled more-or-less unanimously for several weeks now, since before July I think. At this point, (whether or not he decides to take our advice) we're waiting for Jimbo to announce it. So to answer your question, "when" is whenever Jimbo is ready to. →Raul654 19:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- So is Jimbo going to announce ex cathedra that the committee is being replenished with a group of people suggested to him by the current arbitration committee? A lot of people are going to be not best pleased with that, you know! Pcb21| Pete 20:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- We did anticipate that some people would complain about appointments rather than an election. However, given that (A) the last election was a horribly nasty experience that no one wants to repeat more often than necessary (B) we just completed the board election a few days ago, and (C) the arbcom election is a little more than 5 months away, it was decided that appointments would be much better all-around. →Raul654 02:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Well I'll leave it to someone else to run coach and horses through that argument, but suffice there to say there were other options on the spectrum between full-blown elections and hidden behind closed doors, cliquey appointments. Pcb21| Pete 09:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are appointments and there are appointments. Is this going to be an open process or a 'word of mouth', 'who you know is more important that what you know' process? (I declare an interest in that if asked, I would myself serve, though I doubt I would be asked). David | Talk 14:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I too would serve if asked, but like Dbiv I doubt I would be. I wasn't around for the elections last time, so could someone summarise (or point me in the direction of a summary) of what happened to make them "a horribly nasty experience"? Thryduulf 17:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- There are appointments and there are appointments. Is this going to be an open process or a 'word of mouth', 'who you know is more important that what you know' process? (I declare an interest in that if asked, I would myself serve, though I doubt I would be asked). David | Talk 14:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- The biggest problem was that an "endorsements" page was allowed, and some people tried to make use of this to post "disendorsements" of candidates as well. The disendorsements naturally produced some very hostile debates, but by this point the process had gone too far down the path to be undone. --Michael Snow 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that Jimbo asked the current arbcom for suggestions of appointees (Jimbo not being so familiar with the day-to-day pedia these days). This was a while ago, so I assume if you are going to be asked, you have been - particularly as Raul indicated that an announcement should already have been now. Now of course the current members are great. However asking them who they'd like to co-opt will inevitably create a narrower "gene pool" of opinions than ideal. Pcb21| Pete 20:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- That is why these will be interim appointments that will expire at the end of this year. The next regular ArbCom election will have at least 7 seats open instead of the normal 4. --mav 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- There's actually only five that I know of at this point - Delirium is one of the four people whose terms would be expiring anyway. Ambi 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- See below:
Actually, now that Nohat will also be resigning, there will in fact be 7 seats open next election:
Tranche β (term expires 31 Dec 2005; new Tranche β's term will expire 31 Dec 2008)
- Delirium (resigned)
- Daniel Mayer
- Fred Bauder
- David Gerard
Tranche γ (term expires 31 Dec 2006)
- David Friedland (resigned)
- Steven Melenchuk (resigned)
Tranche α (term expires 31 Dec 2007)
- Ambi (resigned)
I imagine that the top vote getters will get to choose which tranche they occupy. So far, I plan to run and hope Fred and David will as well. --mav 01:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo has always and will indefinitely be the person to appoint people to the ArbCom. The difference between a regular election and an interim appointment is that people he appoints based on a regular election serve for 3 years while those he appoints for interim posts serve until the next regular election. For these interim posts he asked the current ArbCom who we thought were good choices and he said that he will base his selection on the short list we gave him. He does not, nor ever has, had to go exactly by what either the community at large or the ArbCom says. --mav 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Jimbo said he would model the wielding of his ultimate power on the Queen of England. That path is not being followed. Pcb21| Pete 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- It seems fairly clear that, either because most Wikipedians are people who suddenly become very busy without notice, or they lead very chaotic lives, that the lifespan of many arbitrators is very short. Perhaps this should be considered as the system for recruiting new arbitrators is defined. David | Talk 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The Queen of the United Kingdom has the power to dissolve Parliament, yet in practice only does so when asked by the Prime Minister, IIRC. Jimbo has yet to not follow the suggestions of others in that mold. My point is that the whole ArbCom process is an extension of his authority and exists at his consent. All we are talking about are several interim appointments; none of which will last beyond the next regular election. --mav 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Without wanting to stretch analogies too much, when MPs resign the Queen doesn't ask the remaining MPs who should fill the gaps... an election is held. Yes Jimbo is boss, but the ArbCom will lose credibility because of this. I think he went the wrong way.
- Instead it would've been highly appropriate to hold an election, learning from the experiences of last time, and re-jigging the future election calendar as needed. However it was not possible for me to even make this suggestion in a timely fashion because the "elections cause too many problems" argument (the same argument as that used in 1930s Germany btw :-), oops Mr Godwin do I lose? :-) ) was made behind closed doors. Pcb21| Pete 17:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The unexplained resignations have an impact on RfAr's currently in progress. Please see here, for an example. Paul Beardsell 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I just wanted to second Pete's concerns above, and make sure that he and everyone knows that I think that me randomly appointing people midterm is not the proper sustainable way to do this in the long run. On the other hand, I chose people who I think will be mostly uncontroversial, in the hopes that we can have a productive and positive dialog about the appointment process before the next community vote. --Jimbo Wales 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Inquiry
User K. contacted me for help with a problem user, IP 71.65.65.165, signing the name User:PastorRussell, but not editing under that name. PastorRussell is claiming that he has exclusive rights to Charles Taze Russell because the arbcom gave him exclusivity to the article. As far as I know there is no such precedent or policy. His claim is bogus isn't it?. -JCarriker 22:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee has never given anyone exclusive control of an article (and, in all likelihood, never will). →Raul654 02:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ombudsman?
Above it is said that being on the ArbCom is a thankless task. That there will always be complaints. But then this fact is used to seemingly say that all complaints are without merit. Just because some (or many) are without merit does not mean that all are. Yet the ArbCom seemingly never admits it is wrong or that it has made a mistake. It seems to be under the misaprehension that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness. To the contrary. I think the ArbCom as often as not makes Misplaced Pages look silly. I also think that the existence of the ArbCom allows for some vexatious complaints. I am not sure what the solution is but a tentative suggestion is the appointment of an ombudsman who will be tasked with ensuring that the ArbCom is seen to act reasonably. Appearances count and it all looks a sorry mess right now. Paul Beardsell 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- We have an ombudsman. Ambi 02:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
We do not nor do I believe you really think that. As the article should make plain. Paul Beardsell 14:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
New arbitrators
Jimbo recently appointed three new arbitrators, of whom two are rather controversial. Jay's many battles and controversies, as well as his aggressive attitude (he's gotten into attacking me on about a weekly basis now) are presumably well-known by all of us reading here (forcing me to regrettably conclude that Jimbo knowingly did not make a fair judgment in promoting him, although I won't presume to guess exactly what his motive was). Right now I want to point out something about the new arbitrator Fennec. I think most of us would agree that an arbitrator should be an active editor and member of the community. A good way of evaluating this is by looking at one's user contributions. I went to Fennec's contributions just now to check out what he had been up to lately, and was surprised to find there was nothing for me evaluate: in the whole month of July so far, he has made only one edit. In previous months he has edited a little more, maybe 10-15 a month, although I would say this puts him only on the level of a sporadic, occasional contributor, not an active member of the community. (See his contributions here.) Now, of course Fennec is active on IRC, which he rules as something like a fiefdom, banning people (or at least me—am I a special case?) perpetually for criticizing certain privileged (in his eyes) users. But does this count? In fact, for me this counts against him; it tells me that he probably owes his position to behind the scenes IRC communication rather than actual wiki-editing. Everyking 07:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Um, please do a little research before you attack people. The main reason why Fennec's name was raised is because he came so close to being elected in December. He lost to Grunt by one vote - and that was because, IIRC, he voted for Grunt. This was the reason his name was raised - not because of IRC, where he rarely even talks. Ambi 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- I remember the election perfectly well. In fact, I myself was a candidate. If this is just about votes, why don't we have another vote? Or we should go straight down the line and appoint the next two, who were Mirv and Cecropia. I thought the idea was that uncontroversial people were supposed to be appointed as placeholders until the next election. Everyking 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Everyking doesn't like the choice of new arbitrators? Oh no! →Raul654 16:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Let's hope the burnout doesn't stop with those three. Everyking 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Best of luck to all new arbitrators. I am sure you will all easily prove why this trust has been placed in you. Pcb21| Pete 20:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales has publicly announced that he doesn't support democratic elections, and would rather have arbitrators that he is friends with, than those with popular support in elections. He has also, in the announcement, stated that his appointment of (temporary) arbitrators has more to do with his favouring of their judgements in preference to those that might be made by editors such as User:Mirv (the next in line in the prior election).
Hopefully this should provide a satisfactory explanation of why the three new arbitrators were chosen. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- The above is total conjecture from someone who has no facts to base it on, mixed with a total mischaracterization of Jimbo's statement. The arbitration committee made a short list of people we thought would make good arbitrators (based on our previous experiences with them), and Jimbo took our recommendation and appointed arbitrators from our short list. So no, he did not appoint them because he is friends with them; as Jimbo put it so succintly, he appointed them because we told him we think they would make good arbitrators (and he trust our judgement). →Raul654 22:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- So what you're basically getting at here is that the members of the ArbCom picked new members of the ArbCom. Everyking 04:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I am yet another user unhappy with the democratic process not being used here. Since Fennec was one vote away from being elected, and James F. was one of the top vote-getters as well, I don't have a problem with them being appointed - in fact, I think they're both fine contributors and that's why so many people voted for them. On the other hand Jayjg received no votes. As opposed to Fennec and James F., in Jayjg's case the elections were ignored. The reasons for his appointment are shrouded in mystification, as is the process by which it was decided, and people questioning it here are attacked.
For my own sanity I generally avoid pages having to do with Palestine/Israel, but on my occassional forays into that morass, I have become aware of Jayjg's POV-pushing on Palestine-related pages. It's obvious to me (and looking at the above comments, obviously others) that he is going to be a lousy arbitrator. A better wiki would have stuck to the democratic process. Ruy Lopez 22:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Potential admin abuse by Neutrality
While User:Neutrality is certainly a hard working admin, he has made questionable edits, and is headed towards going against consensus reached in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=20663757&oldid=20663592#Distinguishing_one_dispute_from_another <-~ that diff ("Revision as of 02:05, 10 August 2005"), as evidenced by this diff on 21:46, 9 August 2005 in the Terri Schiavo page. I fixed the problem (e.g., here), and don't feel he has violated consensus again, (scratch that -he has -see below) yet therefore his past actions, as discussed on the talk page, make me feel it is appropriate to make a formal record of my complaint if he causes trouble again by his POV editing abuse as an admin.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Update:
I am new to making complaints against admins -I usually get along well with the "powers that be," and as such, I have never actually made a complaint against an admin. I did (1) Try to talk it over with the opposition; and, (2) I did talk it over on the talk page, and, by my count, with six (6) active editors participating, the vote went down 4-2 in favor of the version that I support, and yet Neutrality bucks all consensus and has an attitude (not a good done?).
When you include the agreement by my Chinese and Hispanic colleagues at the other wikis (see the appropriate links in Talk:Terri_Schiavo), and considering one other editor who is not currently active, I think the vote would more accurately be 7-2 in my favor, not even counting the "google.com" meta-analysis I performed.
Neutrality appears to have called my bluff, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20665553&oldid=20664323
I wonder if he violated consensus, and by proxy and extension, whether he violated Misplaced Pages policy regarding abuse of admin powers. ?? --GordonWattsDotCom 02:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hm? Did he use any admin powers? Dmcdevit·t 06:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- "Hm? Did he use any admin powers?" Not this time, not yet anyhow, but just give him time: In the past he has blocked at least one person for no reason, referring to NCdave, whose edits were passionate but usually not POV and not inaccurate. Further, when an admin edits and makes questionable edits, the "intimidation" factor is present. That is why those in authority are generally held to a higher standard. Lastly, even if his abuses were merely "editor" abuses, and not of admin powers, that is inexcusable. For example, another editor has complained about his hit-and-run edits, in which he just comes in and -without concensus or discussion -edits. I don't have the diff handy, but I might be able to find it if I searched hours and hours. The point, however, is this: If he abuses editor powers, he would abuse admin powers too. I feel bad that I don't have Duckecho's diff handy, where he too complained about Neutrality, but Neutrality has been here long enough that we can see that he sometimes edits as a "Lone Ranger" and without concensus or discussion, so my point stands or falls on its own merits -not the merits of another diff, which I can't find at the moment.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Minor issue of semantics
Why are they called "arbitrators" and not just "arbiters"? 205.217.105.2 16:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Because they arbitrate, they don't arbite! -Silence 06:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- So this parrot kept biting me, and I asked the pirate that owned him, "What's he called?", and said "Arrrrr. . . Biter!" Then I asked him what he looked for in a good modem, and he answered "Arrrr. . . Bitrate!" (Thanks, I'll be here all week.) – Quadell 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Election suggestion
I have had some thoughts on Arbitration Committee appointment, see here (ArbCom Elections Dec05) for discussion. FT2 18:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Suffrage
I feel that suffrage in these elections are rather arbitrary, as a person could be both a long-term member and have substantial quantities of edits without being a good Wikipedian, while a rather new but obviously dedicated user is an upstanding Wikipedian who is being prevented from voting by qualifications that don't reflect their dedication to Misplaced Pages. As to edit-count, I would think a more proportional standard applied to their time registered would be appropriate. Additionally, a measurement of how often a person's edits are reverted could be a qualifier. Smeggysmeg 05:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
EffK Trial
I come here in good faith to say that I am un-able to load my own Evidence page from the link in Arbcom AND to request someone of good faith to load into that evidence the following, for me, at the top of my evidence. This could be a browser issue, but I have enough experience here to wonder always whether there is sinister abuse of Misplaced Pages preventing normal function.
11 January 2005
- 10.49
User:Musical Linguist presents at Evidence: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Misplaced Pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=34739827&oldid=34738996#11_November_2005,]. This is an abuse of this User's Administrator capacity, is made in poor faith, is an attempt to lead/insert evidence whilst not becoming a party, and is a dishonestly described edit. This reveals the User's cabal membership and propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK. I request that this edit be adjudged as making of Musical Linguist a Party to this Arbitratation of me / or the denialist clerical revisionists in Misplaced Pages. Ends /finish EffK 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I repeat my request that someone please insert, cuts and pastes, the dated sub-section as the Evidence still cannot be loaded by me. ThankyouEffK 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
- After repeated effort the evidence is uploaded. EffK 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Musical Linguist's response to accusations against her
This page is on my watchlist, and when I read the beginning of his post, I was actually going to offer to upload evidence for him, if he had browser problems. Then I saw that his post was about me!!!
The diff that EffK supplies show that I made two additions to the evidence page of his RfAr. My edit summary says: Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.)
Occasionally a wikipedian, while making a post to a talk page, deletes something added by a previous contributor. The deleted post could be a personal attack, a rant, a strong piece of POV pushing, or a completely off-topic post. Such deletions are, in my opinion, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Such removals often cause offense.
It can also happen that someone edits a talk page, and as well as the addition he has made, there is a deletion of a previous post from another contributor, or even from more than one. This happens completely against the intention of the editor, and there is no "edit conflict" warning. Sometimes the posts that get deleted were made several hours before. I have no idea why this happens, but have sometimes seen people getting very indignant because they think that another editor deleted their post on purpose.
In adding a comment to a talk page, I recently wiped out the post of the previous editor. I don't know how it happened. Luckily, the editor who came after me assumed good faith and just restored it without comment. More recently, Str1977 accidentally wiped out two posts while making his own. When it was drawn to his attention, he apologized and restored them.
The edit history relevant to EffK's accusation against me will show the following diffs:
- 10:49, 11 January 2006 Musical Linguist (Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.))
- 10:18, 11 January 2006 EffK (→Evidence presented by EffK - Removal of Reichskonkordat)
- 20:37, 10 January 2006 Robert McClenon (→03 January 2006)
- 17:50, 10 January 2006 Str1977 (→Evidence presented by Str1977 from his confrontation with FK)
A very brief look will show immediately that Robert McClenon added the words: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Misplaced Pages at 20:37 on 10 January; that EffK added evidence for 30 August 2005 at 10:18 on 11 January; that Str1977 added to his own 10 January 2006 evidence seventeen minutes later at 10:35; that the two previous edits got swallowed up at the same time; and that I restored those deleted edits at 10:49, with no additions of my own and with an edit summary commenting on the fact that they had probably been deleted through a software bug.
To reply to each of EffK's accusations:
- I did not use any administrator's powers in making that edit.
- My edit was made in good faith, as I was trying to undo the result of a software glitch, and was also trying to spare Str1977 a possible accusation of having wiped out the posts on purpose.
- I made no attempt to insert my own evidence, although to do so is not prohibited, and although I do have diffs that show EffK being less than civil to me, including one where, editing while not logged in, he seems to compare my promotion to adminship to Hitler's rise to power. I merely readded Robert McClenon's evidence and EffK's own evidence (which I think he should have noticed before making his latest accusation).
- There is nothing dishonest in my edit summary. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer and stated that I was restoring these two edits. But I assumed that it was sufficient, while reinserting them, simply to state that they had been deleted.
- I can't comment on the "cabal membership" statement, as I have no idea what he is talking about.
- I do not have a "propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK". I have never made any kind of attack on him; nor have I felt any wish to do so. I have reverted some of his editing, though not frequently; and, at a time when I was extremely busy with college work, I have taken a lot of time to respond to his concerns, possibly adding to his frustration, which I regret. I am not involved in this case, other than that I was a witness some months ago to the way he filled up the Benedict XVI talk page with several extremely long posts which had nothing to do with editing the article.
EffK, you have made utterly false accusations of abuse of administratorship and dishonest edit summary, among other things. You have also taken up over half an hour of my time in responding (and you may note from my user page and talk page that I am very busy at the moment and am trying to contribute less to Misplaced Pages until the end of the month). I will, nevertheless, accept your apology if you choose to make one, and continue to wish you well, regardless. AnnH 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yhis is a work
I am very offended. EffK 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
EffK answer to Musical Linguist Protestations
Yes indeed, you should have been more careful to show that you had not written that of McClenon's, but it appeared that you had. Your name was up as the editor of the diff. I can hardly be blamed for seeing your statement as your statement. And, Yes, you have shown bad faith by joining in attack on me at his earlier Rfc, another Straw man attack to deflect from the sourced truth. You were in bad faith in estimating that I have a personal grudge against this Church. And You remain in bad faith for never answering your reduction of 30 odd priests to one or was it zero in the Ferns Scandal, and you remain in bad faith in not accounting for your removal(as my POV/error) of the scandalous Irish government deal struck with the Church for 100 million(now 900 in costs to them), and you remain in bad faith for removing the priestly rebellion, after one priest went public.By demanding source after the entire was in the media, you are denying my good faith and provoking further identification of my whereabouts. You answered jesuitically concerning the papal secrecy clause, and distorted or removed NPOV I used to balance a disgusting Article. I also remind you that you came as close to blackmailing-setting a condition for your answering re that Sex Abuse as it was possible to approach. You made me apologise to a massive over-reaction in the example of Str1977 German forebear. I did not say that his forebear tried to kill mine, and succeeded, actually, I said he might have had some centre party Connection, as some motive for Str1977 protecting the Centre Article, and his over-reaction(typically Strawman) to contemporary widespread german political memory and shame. I do still believe that Str1977 must have a political connection to the early party, or to the present little new Centre party factions rearing their heads in Germany now. I had to accede to that pressure, but you didn't keep to your bargain, and complete your answer at Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
I believe if I had to I could show several assumption of bad faith edits, aimed at Strawman demolition of verifiable source. You have consistently assumed my bad faith, and Str1977's veracity, and gone and chosen not to accept asny conditioning of this your this response through my sourced justifications at many nercessary discussions, therefore I do not accept your denial of knowledge of the denialist clerical revisionism cabal. You have voluntarily assisted the cabal many times despite my good faith verifiability, and this effort of yours in Evidence shows you are still partisan and willing to be so, or you should have said in the diff-tag that you had been requested to assist. If you are completely naive, then I truly am sorry, for you, for my assumption of intelligence, and for Misplaced Pages being so populated. I will show diffs here if you desire.
I will clearly accept that I jumped to a natural conclusion that you wrote that which you were visible as writing. I believe all the rest shows me your bias and poor faith,preceding your Adminshipwhich I regret you and your friends displaying. I therefore make no personal attack in recognising bias through assumption of bad faith. As you know I asked repeatedly for you to account for your removals. You should not have joined with the others in the cabal, and you are wrong in so helping Str1977 at this trial and everywhere, and you should not say you know nothing of Hitler and then show otherwise by minutiae corrections and voting off clearly verifiable material from Misplaced Pages. You should not whitewash the sex Abuse page, and you should still explain what gives you the right to display bad faith to me in qualifying my contribution as no more than POV/unsourced ill-written error . Apart from all that- I do not and did not look for you to join in the bad faith attack made on my integrity, and I suggest to you that, if I remain here, which is dependant on a guilt being cast at your fellow catholic-biased editors, that you will be able to renew your un-biased capacities by distancing yourself from such faith-based editing policy. Go back and undo the damage you mischievously made at Sex Abuse, badly tagged, and never accounted for. Do not abuse my intentions by stating even to me that I am an anti-catholic. I assert that the papacy , as sourced, did what it did, and the logic is that it was hypocrisy. Logic is universal, not mine alone, actually. I source my contentions, and you and your friends rubbish this source against WP principles. As to your waste of half an hour- You have contributed to my waste of more than half a year, and against clear Misplaced Pages principle of Verifiability. In being so against this principle and the assumption of good faith, you have joined in cabal wrong. Apart from that I am sorry, and now I equally list this under your response at my Trial.
I note that you thus far do not wish to enter the Evidence pages- even though you know that I have now used up my permitted defensive diff-count, and therefor you have a virtual open-goal. Considering your previous eagerness to combine against me on all VfD's and RfC, and generally, this is inconsistant. I itemised my witness to your bias at your vote for Administrator, and it still holds several truths. I would say to all rational persons at Misplaced Pages that you Musical Linguist are a part of their faith revisionism problem, if Misplaced Pages is to become a respectable source.
EffK 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
- I'm sorry, I think I missed some of that. Could you repeat? – Quadell 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a work
I am very , extremely offended. EffK 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin
Hello, I am requesting help with a particular admin here that has stated I could be banned for what my personal position is on discussing matters with other Wikipedians. For some background information and I also want to clearly state my problem. I joined Misplaced Pages in December of 2005 in response to the actions taken concerning the wiki article "wehatetech" or "we hate tech." The article has been pulled several times and I do understand that once it's voted on somehow, not exactly clear on that, it's removed from the encyclopedia. I am NOT here to fight for that particular article. i understand that there is a guideline for articles, BUT my observation and opinion is that the rules were not followed properly in the process of deletion. Why am I still here? Well, in a nutshell, I have seen people removed from the site or blocked for various reasons I also do not agree with, but it up to those individual people to address their removal. I decided to stay in order to provide constructive criticism of the deletion process and to add another viewpoint to the issue. I feel improperly judged, reading from responses to my post, a "one issue candidate" and have been threatened with removal from the site, being a sock-puppet for "we hate tech" and accused of "cluttering" talk pages.
My purpose is not to clutter the site or be on any type of mission to tear down Misplaced Pages. I wish to understand why certain things happen here and hope to add thoughtful insight and more information to topics in order to resolve an issue. I do feel like I am being pushed around and generally really upset with the whole process with a select group of individuals either working behind the scenes or posting on my talk page. Two Wikipedians have stood out in this whole situation, User:Haikupoet and admin User:Zoe. I have had several exchanges with both, with Haikupoet moving one comment and then deleting my response to because I was under the impression that it was deleted. My response comment was then deleted, which resulted in the blocking User:Xerves. The block happened due to a supposed "legal threat" by "Zoe" which has now threatened me with the same. It's not MY forum I am promoting. I am a member of such forum and website http://www.wehatetech.com and I am NOT trying to promote in the first place.
I AM promoting that fellow Wikipedians discuss issues and not stomp over other postings by others. I am being totally honest and upfront. I do not have a hidden agenda. Have I been totally innocent? No, there are two comments / edits on my behalf that broke regulation. i was dealt with in a proper manner by those admins and I am thankful for that. If further investigation yields that I be removed from Misplaced Pages then so be it, as long as I am adequately told as to such infractions. i only wish to resolve this issue. i have deleted none of my post and will not edit any of my post to make myself appear in a different light. Everything is available through my user history.
Thank you. Kmac1036 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Greetings, Kmac. Your complaint would be more appropriate at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you move it there, you're more likely to get a response. – Quadell 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Clerk's Office
A proposal by Raul654 has been made for a Clerks' Office for the Arbitration Committee. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerk's office for the proposal and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerk's_office for discussion. David | Talk 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Active date
Since the list changed based on Jimbo's announcement, should the date change too? I'd fix it myself but I got edit conflicts twice, perhaps someone who is fixing things already could do it too? ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where is Jimbo's announcement? Paul August ☎ 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mailing list. Sam Korn 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Should the page now say that each tranche has five members? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed :) Raul654 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What the...how come the new people are already active? I thought it wasn't supposed to be until Feb. 1. Everyking 06:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? Raul654 07:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, but that's what I remembered. Everyking 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, the intent was to have the new ArbCom instated and active by feb 1st at the latest, thus giving people (by which I mean Jimbo) some time for consideration after the election ended. There's no harm in doing it faster than that, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
e-mails on active list?
Hello, Arbcom. What would you think, on the main arbcom page, of having, instead of or in addition to those (somewhat confusing) e-mail addresses (member at whatever.com), something like this: e-mail this arbitrator. It looks better, it's actually marginally more spam-proof, and in my view it would be easier to use. If you're interested, I'm happy to add or switch them myself. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's probably a good idea. Raul654 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. All but yours, Raul, since you're listed as "away." Chick Bowen 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Kelly Martin's resignation
Kelly Martin resigned. A logged in user, and then an anon-IP, changed the text to say that Kelly Martin either was unelected or resigned "during an unsuccessful reelection bid". This is both inaccurate and mean-spirited. I'm not a big KM supporter -- I voted against her, in fact. But this is just childish. – Quadell 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't consider this a particularly big deal, and I am emphatically not that IP. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- (Glad to hear that. I don't mean to say that your single change was necessarily mean-spirited, but the repeated reverting is.) – Quadell 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Filiocht
Filiocht (talk · contribs) has not edited Misplaced Pages since December 22, 2005. Would this mean that s/he should be listed as either "away" or "inactive"? --TML1988 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Inactive, but not yet. Let's give him a little more time. Raul654 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- How in the world did he do so well without even being present? He shouldn't even be given a seat unless he shows up really soon to claim it (say Feb.?). Move one down the list for whoever was passed over in favor of Jayjg. Everyking 05:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's for Jimbo to decide. Raul654 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Has anyone e-mailed him? Chick Bowen 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Several people, last I heard; no response, though. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed Kelly Martin PA
I removed Kelly Martin PA per WP:NPA. It insulted 90% of arb parties. Even if true, this message is not helpful and may further damage the process. --FloNight 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've restored my comments. WP:RPA is controversial, and your use of it in this circumstance even more so. Please do not do that again. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank-you for the feedback. --FloNight 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration on Another Wiki
Hi,
I am involved in a dispute on Wiktionary. Does the arbitration committee handle requests for issues on Wiktionary and, if so, where should I place a request for arbitration and / or mediation there?
Thanks,
Primetime 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Technically, there's nothing in the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy to prohibit us from taking the case, but that's almost certainly an oversite. I don't think we have standing to hear a case on another wiki. Raul654 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a special page for requests for CheckUser permission?
I'd like to request CheckUser permission, but I can't seem to find any particular place to ask. MSJapan 21:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, there is no such page. Raul654 21:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then, I would like to ask the ArbCom for CheckUser access, because I would like to get involved in the community at large rather than the relatively small area I contribute in now. I have had extensive experience as a board moderator, so I know the IP tracing and identification process, as well as what is valid as similar IP and what is not. Therefore, however slim the chance may be, I would like to be considered for CheckUser. Thank you. MSJapan 00:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Vacancy to be filled?
Is there any discussion about this somewhere that I'm missing? - brenneman 05:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing. Bpogi92 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)