Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:41, 6 February 2008 editLawrence Cohen (talk | contribs)13,393 edits →New Private ArbCom mailing list?: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,311 edits →Egad: new section Is there a clerk aroundTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 21 |counter = 20
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|minthreadsleft = 2
}} }}
{{Arbcom-talk|requests for arbitration process}}
{{shortcut|]}}
{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable" align="right" width="200px"
|-
! border="0" heading align="center" colspan="6" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|}


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}}
== Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case? ==


__TOC__
I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at ]. I invite discussion there. ] (]) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


== Motion 2b ==
== ] ==


Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging {{ping|Chess|Selfstudier}} who's discussion made me think of this. ] (]) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can give some guidance with the ongoing discussion at ]. The abridged version is:


:. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Per ], the ] sockpuppet has been used disruptively by ]. The W. Frank account stopped editing in mid September (save for a few votes in ArbCom elections and an RfA in December), and the Alice account started editing in late September. At this time the ArbCom case was still ongoing and W. Frank may well have ended up on probation or another sanction.
:@] I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


== Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? ==
Recently, the Alice account has been used to harass and attack editors involved in the case, something W. Frank had done previously. This led to the checkuser request, which confirmed Alice and W. Frank were one and the same. The Alice account has been blocked, and there is a general consensus amongst admins that W. Frank should be placed on the probation remedy from the case.


There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
However due to security concerns W. Frank may not wish to carry on editing using that account (although that's speculation). So, do editors on probation have the right to start editing with a brand new account? If so who, if anyone, do they need to inform of the account they are using? Thanks. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


:@] Imo, per the principle of ], no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:An important aspect of this situation is that ] is the user's real name. His address was posted on wikipedia in what he saw as a threatening way. He was not alone in this interpretation. The account ] was created after this event, but is now compromised as it is known that it is being used by W. Frank. There was not an abusive use of socks in the standard sense. The posting of personal info about him occurred around 19 August 2007. The edits in question were oversighted. W. Frank started editing as "Alice.S" on 28 September 2007, presumably as direct result of this with the aim of creating an anonymous user ID. The name "Alice.S" was subsequently changed to "Alice" by usurpation, but that's neither here nor there and the contribs history is the same: there have been 2827 edits by Alice/Alice.S. Most have been to other areas and, from what I can make out, he has only re-entered the Troubles arena in the last 2 weeks, presumably feeling that his RL ID was sufficiently disguised. W. Frank was not placed on probation by ArbCom and is not on probation now by admin action, but this is being discussed. To forbid him to create a new account so he can edit anonymously is to force him to use an account which has been compromised. ] (]) 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


== Egad ==
::The problem is also that if W. Frank wanted a fresh start, there was other ways to go about it then ending up harassing the same editors. The probation which they have likely earned (to date, there is no one on the thread that discusses it that disagrees with it as a a sanction) makes things difficult. The way I see it, the way we have three options. In order of preference:


Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::A) Allow W. Frank to create a new account, but place it under probation. I don't think this will work for the very same reason the reason Tyrenius says above, since the account has been tied to a RL identity, all we're doing is changing the name of the account involved.

::B) unblock the Alice account, and let W.Frank edit on that account, under civility parole and 1RR/week on Troubles articles. This is less then optimal.

::C) Block the W. Frank account, let him create a new account that does not have the probation underneath it, however, W. Frank will have to agree not to edit on Troubles related articles (a defacto topic ban). This is to prevent any new editors in the Troubles related areas from instantly being accused of being W. Frank. ArbCom would have to be aware of this new account's name.

::All in all, I am sympathetic to the fact that W. Frank's RL identity has been exposed, and I considered it a horrendously bad action by the person involved. However, that does not change the fact that if W. Frank had continued to make trouble on the Troubles ArbCom case, he likely would have been placed on probation at that time, and he had his clean start, but drifted back to his old, bad behaviour and more then the checkuser itself, provided the link to his old identity. ] (]) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I think this matter should be handled by direct email to Arbcom-L from Frank/Alice, and I have no problem leaving both accounts blocked until something is worked out. Unfortunately, editors who both (a) use their real names and (b) get in trouble with Arbcom are in a real bind. If the user wanted to disappear and reincarnate, and managed to avoid ''Troubles'' articles and editors, no one would ever know. The fact that Alice is harassing other editors proves that he/she needs to be under probation. At this time, blocking the Frank account and placing Alice under probation leaves an identity trail that he/she does not want left out in the open. This person could create yet a third account, but if it too returned to the same bad behavior, we'd be looking at the possibility of a community ban for repeatedly evading the Arbcom sanctions through sockpuppetry. One possibility is a new account approved by Arbcom but kept confidential and known to a small number of admin monitors who would administer "secret probation"; watching the user and applying sanctions as needed without publicly disclosing his identity. But that would have to be approved in advance by Arbcom. ] 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Franco-Mongol alliance ==

Could we get some more votes so this case is either accepted, or properly shot down? ] <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
: Jehochman, we've already talked about this off-wiki, but I guess I need to repeat it on-wiki. I am extremely uncomfortable that you're involved with this case at all, and wish that you would withdraw from participation. I do not feel that you are an uninvolved administrator here. You repeatedly threatened to start a case, and I repeatedly told you that I did not want you getting involved (for or against) in any way. And though I specifically told you on multiple occasions that I did ''not'' want you to start the case, you went ahead anyway. I then told you (again) to stay out of it, but I see that you are still poking around. In some circumstances I might see this just as a "difference of opinion," or good-faith efforts that I disagree with, but I am seeing now in other cases that other editors too are raising concerns that you seem to be having a tendency to jump into everyone else's disputes. I can't speak for the details of the other disputes, but it is my opinion that in terms of the Franco-Mongol alliance issue, that your behavior over the last few months has ''escalated'' this dispute, not de-escalated it, and I would again ask you to please stay out. --]]] 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure how Jehochman's comment warranted that kind of response. Anyone -- involved or uninvolved -- could have made the rather decent request to expedite the acceptance or rejection of this case. -- ''']''' 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

== Workshop pages ==

Several people have commented ] or ] (depending on whichever page the thread ends up on when they stop reverting each other) that the new workshop template is rather unweildy and difficult to work with. Per ]'s comment , I have come here to request that, because of this, the Arbitrators take the comments under advisement and consider changing it back. Perhaps ask what people on the ] ] cases with this format what they think? A thought. '''] | ]''' 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

== New Private ArbCom mailing list? ==

I've started a discussion on the ArbCom mailing list about adding a new arbitration committee mailing list only for current arbitrators. On the new list, we would discuss issues that only the arbitrators want to discuss among ourselves. And on the new list we would have our discussions and receive evidence in cases where one member of the current list is involved. Thoughts? ]] 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:Fully support. This should have been done long ago. ] (]) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::It seems all upside from the peanut gallery, only you folks can decide if it has a downside. ] 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:It sounds like a good idea. Would this become the official mailing list to which people would send evidence, the privacy concerns Arbcom has said it will accept, and general queries; or will the current extended mailing list (including former arbs) continue to exist and to and receive that information? As well, I am curious as to how the new list will manage to separate out what information an arbitrator involved in a current case needs to be excluded from, without excluding them entirely from the list and the rest of the cases being discussed. Thanks for bringing this up, FloNight. ] (]) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Risker, those are the issues that we are discussing. I'm suggesting that we use it for cases that a member of the main mailing list is truly an involved party. ]] 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Flo, I really think this is an issue that arbs need to decide for themselves. The rest of the community simply don't have the information to weigh up the pros and cons. FWIW I'm always suspicious that compartmentalising communications is detrimental to proper communication, but if this is being done to address real (and not theoretical or perceptual) problems with the status quo, then go to it. But there really is no point in inviting community input here, all it will do is foster drama and uninformed opinion. And at that, since I have admitted I don't know what I'm talking about, I will leave it.--]<sup>g</sup> 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
*I spent ages looking for the thread I started on this. I finally remembered I had started it in the more logical place: ]. Two former arbitrators and a current arbitrator (Raul, Mackensen and jpgordon) all said (in effect) "no". Interesting to see the different response here. I think my proposal is more logical, in that it ''moves'' the emeritus arbcom people to a new mailing list (which would also include the current arbitrators), and restores the main arbitration committee mailing list to current arbitrators (as it was when first created - when there ''were'' no ex-arbitrators). FloNight's proposal is, though, just as good, and I hope one or the other change eventually gets implemented. FWIW, there is absolutely nothing to stop the current arbitration committee setting up a private mailing list and either reducing, or stopping, the amount that they use arbcom-l. The downside would be a lack of archives, but I think Doc has in the past argued against the existence of such archives. ] (]) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::I'm with Doc that this is largely an internal matter, but I see no reason why the default list, whatever it is called, shouldn't include the former arbitrators and others. Except when considering conduct within that group, I can easily see that input from other high level trusted users is a good thing--avoid narrow groupthink and all that. ] 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flo, I'm guessing you guys are curious for outside opinion or views, or else this wouldn't have been posted here. Being an ignorant person, I'd only suggest that 1) the list be limited (as you mention) to just the sitting arbitrators as selected by the community and no-one else; 2) it be available like the current list for outsiders to post to, if they want to use their discretion to exclude ex-arbiters and Jimbo from private communications with the Committee; 3) all grumbling on the various pages I see from various people, the general list with a million people isn't a bad idea for feeling out issues if the seated AC chooses to request private input from Jimbo or the ex-Arbs; 4) I'm guessing this is all coming up due to various issues related to the IRC, and "feedback" from some individuals that I'm guessing the current arbs based on this didn't find helpful (again, just me being ignorant here). If the currently community-chose Arbs think this is a good idea to streamline process and things, go for it. It's your choice in the end. The most important thing is that if the "new" list is limited to literally just the standing AC--i.e., no Jimbo, no ex-arbs, no outsiders controlling the list as owners/moderators--you will probably get better or more useful confidential information and have a smoother discussion with just the voices that we chose to pore through. Again, all just ignorant guesses here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Below what line? ==

I have filled out a request for arbitration, but I can't figure out where to put it. The steps say to paste it "below the line." What line?
] (]) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:Your request is posted correctly, so you don't need to worry about the formatting. Could one of the Clerks please check the request for arbitration template to make sure the instructions are clear. ] (]) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Suggest a change to ''"...below the "Current requests" line..."'' (or even "header" instead of "line", but "header" might not be clear either). ] (]) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I fixed it already, using the exceedingly literal description, "immediately below <nowiki>==Current requests==</nowiki>". ] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::::You missed ]... :-) ] (]) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024

Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist.

Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration		Shortcuts
Arbitration talk page archives
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009)
Various archives (2004–2011)
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–)
WT:RFAR subpages
Archive of prior proceedings

Motion 2b

Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging @Chess and Selfstudier: who's discussion made me think of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

HJM seems to think so. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect?

There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chess Imo, per the principle of ex post facto, no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Egad

Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)