| Revision as of 17:53, 14 April 2008 editKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits →Arbitration: The first stage of the next round of dispute resolution?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,324 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 = |
|counter = 20 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/Front matter}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| == ''Whistles'' - Clerks needed == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ] has been disrupting the arbitration page by posting in other peoples' sections. Please put and end to this, with a block if need be. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| :Why couldn't I, when other users routinely respond in other people's section? ] (]) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: '']'' (] version). Get real. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
:. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| ::Give it up, we're "wrong". He did this throughout the entire Arb case and argued with the clerks (and they were "wrong" too) when they moved his statements to his section. <font face="Blackadder" color="#2B0066">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::: I just checked his user page to see what type of character would use such flimsy and disruptive arguments. I must say that this all makes his impressive contribution history a sham. Too bad that a user with so much experience still acts like a classic newbie disrupter who doesn't understand anything and refuses to meekly accept good advice. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 17:29, 30 March 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) | |||
| == Motions page? == | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| Does the committee use the ] anymore? It seems to have been used for two cases in January, and not used since. Over the last few months, I believe a few motions have actually been handled on ] itself. If there's no use for this page anymore, perhaps it should be redirected to WP:RFAR in order to avoid confusion. ] (]) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :At the moment, most motions in closed cases have arisen after someone outside the committee raised a question of clarification or asked for an expansion of the remedies. The motions then come in below the appropriate section of the request. It's not inconceivable that an issue will come up when an arbitrator discovers them, or the committee is alerted privately; in this case the transcluded page for motions would be used. ] (]) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wouldn't it make more sense to move clarifications and motions completely off the RfArb page to the seperate motions page? The main ] page can get rather long and confusing at times - having a seperate page would probably help. ] 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Would make sense to me. Easy enough to add another page to the watchlist. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've been bold and moved it to ] - it might get reverted, but we'll see. ] 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I support the move, as I agree that the main RfAr page was getting much too long. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it might make more of the amendments easier to "backburner". As it is the motions tend to get very slow responses from the already overloaded Arbs, and having the motions on an entirely different page might exacerbate this problem. But that's really up to the Committee, as to how they want to organize their workflow. --]]] 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] follow-up == | |||
| Just in case this becomes an issue I'll be proactive here. Matt Sanchez, who edited as Bluemarine and is sitebanned from Misplaced Pages, is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. After the en:Misplaced Pages arbitration case closed he accepted my standing offer of mentorship and has been making productive contributions there. He has also made requests about the ] article. At first I advised him about policies and procedures and directed him to OTRS. Due to a lack of response from OTRS and several bright line policy issues at the article I chose to involve myself directly. The article had problems with contributory copyright infringements, negative material sourced to non-notable blogs, etc. | |||
| I don't want to cross the line regarding proxy editing so I'm proceeding quite cautiously. At ] I have already disclosed my interaction with Mr. Sanchez. When he requests a change I ask him for reliable sources, explain policies, and evaluate the request. Then I propose reasonable changes to the talk page. If no one objects I implement the change. If someone does object we discuss it, and if no agreement is reached then I seek independent evaluation at a noticeboard. I am not Matt Sanchez's partisan; several months ago I blocked him and I endorsed his siteban. If there is any problem with the approach I'm taking now, please advise. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That sounds perfectly reasonable to me; with the (generally applicable) caveat that by accepting to proxy the edits you take personal responsibility for their contents— in this particular case you seem to be applying careful editorial precautions accordingly. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::<shrug> makes sense to me as well. I keep one eye on that page and think that Durova's doing a reasonable job dealing with it. As long as she's willing to take personal responsibility, I'm okay with it. - <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Follow up to BDJ arbitration == | |||
| It is acceptable to list at the ] pages the cases where the arbitration case has been directly cited? Is it also acceptable to draw the attention of the arbitrators to cases where the working of an arbitration case remedy "on the ground" is leading to disputes? In other words, point this out without filing a new request, clarification or a post at arbitration enforcement? I would like in particular to point out the following: | |||
| *] (AN thread about the incident that involved a redirect and protection) | |||
| *] (DRV thread - consensus seems overwhelming that something went wrong here) | |||
| * (specifically principle 4 - summary deletion of BLPs) | |||
| * (this seems strange and worrying if done intentionally, if it was a mistake, no problem) | |||
| * (again, should such actions be listed at the arbitration case pages?) | |||
| *: ''"I'm half tempted to revert this ASAP because I see no BLP violation here which is implied."'' | |||
| *: ''"Don't. You can get desysopped for doing so."'' | |||
| *: ''"On the upside, summary BLP deletions (or protected redirections, I suppose) of this sort, citing the Bdj RfAr and suggesting that DRV is the proper venue to seek to overturn those deletions, are increasingly seen as inappropriate except in extreme cases, and it may be that the community will soon, as I advocated it do in the wake of the Bdj RfAr, make explicit in BLP that certain principles of that RfAr should not be understood as mandated by or consistent with policy, in order that we address a bit of well-intentioned ArbCom ]."'' | |||
| I think my question is whether a clarification or other request filed now would save time and effort in the future? Essentially I am looking for brief preliminary guidance from one or more arbitrators, especially in light of the current debate about John254 and people being too quick to file at arbitration. ] (]) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If anyone want to add something to the BDJ case pages, the following seems to have been the upshot of all this: , , , and . The admin actions have been overturned but there has been no response from the admin yet, though one editor has the admin in question. This is still a sensitive area, though, so guidance from the arbitration committee might be helpful (or maybe not). ] (]) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of case in tendentious terms == | |||
| This edit by {{user|John254}} is troubling in a couple of respects. First, it includes an edit summary which assumes that his assertion in making the case was valid, based on musing by one arbitrator, yet it entirely ignores another arbitrator's unequivocal comment that ''I find the request to be distinctly tendentious; there is a minor content dispute and an issue over whether a source is reliable, but there's certainly not the egregious BLP violations claimed''. Few if any of those commenting on the case appear to agree with John254's assertion that this is an egregious BLP violation, and most appear to believe that it was another in a series of vexatious cases brought by this user. Second, it's removing a case on which arbitrators were actively deciding. Yes, it was not going to be accepted, but there was at least some chance of a resolution in respect of John's repeated vexatious use of process. Third, one is not, unless one is an ArbCom clerk, supposed to interfere with the statements of others in requested cases - I am as rouge as they come and I would not remove a case or anyone else's comments, I'd simply comment that I withdraw the request. Fourth, by removing the case in this way, no archive or record is made of the case's rejection. I don't know if we even keep records of rejected cases, I'm not much of an arbitration watcher, but it seems to me that the clerks are there for a reason and if you want something quietly nuked because you've made an ass of yourself then you should ask the clerks, who are nice people. In this case, John seems to be asserting the opposite: that everyone but him is the ass. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * OK, sorry, strike that - the edit has been reverted, the sky is no longer falling, and I am over-reacting to trivialities once again. Apologies, all, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. I just hope that wasn't normal service. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **In this particular case, I would have reverted the removal had not Nick intervened to do so earlier. The procedures are fairly clear that only clerks (and arbitrators, obviously) should be removing requests from this page, and there is no exception for cases one has initiated: in many cases (and, indeed, in this particular case) there can be counterclaims that other editors have raised that need to be addressed regardless of the initiating party's desire to withdraw their original request. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Very disappointed == | |||
| I just want to say how disappointed I am to see comments like "It was a bad block" in Arbitrators' comments about whether to accept or reject the case. You should wait until you've actually heard the case before making judgements like that, otherwise what's the point in having the case at all? Just pass summary judgement and be done with it. --] (]) 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed, I find it hard to believe that one can come to a decision before reviewing the evidence. Now you may be able to get some context by yourself, but unless both sides have presented what they see as relevant evidence then any such statement is premature. ] 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Committee members know how that they intended for discretionary sanctions to be used and want to communicate to Community their thoughts about it, I think. Personally, I never intended for them to be used when an editor removes a comment from their own talk page with a snarly comment in the edit summary. I'm quite concerned that other admins are going to duplicate this approach to enforcing our Committee sanctions and what to nip it in the bud, asap. ]] 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are other ways of making official general comments on your interpretation of previous rulings. It is inappropriate to do so by passing judgement on a case before hearing it. --] (]) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh I don't know, there's no reason to assume they haven't reviewed the same evidence that's available to everyone else. It's not a complicated case and anyone can get a pretty clear picture of events behind the block itself in 5 minutes. If a case is opened, it's not going to be opened to see if the block was bad but to see if sanctions are appropriate and/or there is a pattern of inappropriate use of admin tools. No one is going to open a case to just get Arbs opinion on a block...] (]) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Nods''' in agreement to Rx StrangeLove's comment. ]] 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::People with cases filed against them should still be given a chance to defend themselves before judgement is passed. --] (]) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Tango certainly has a point, and it's why if I see a case that I feel definitely should be accepted I will only note my acceptance and not explain reasoning in detail. However where cases are not accepted it is necessary to explain whether what went on was appropriate or inappropriate. A simple statement of 'decline' is liable to be misinterpreted. If an arbitrator declines a case and says that a particular block is bad, the opinion is ''obiter'', as the lawyers would say. ] (]) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since a case may be accepted even when a given arbitrator has voted to reject, such comments should be saved until after the case is actually rejected. Not all such comments were even made as part of a rejecting - Matthew Brown was making purely a comment without a vote. --] (]) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you have something to say in defense of your actions that you haven't already said elsewhere, by all means, avail yourself of the opportunity. You've made so many statements attempting to defend your actions that it would be odd to think that you're saving the really good stuff for ''after'' the arbitration case opens against you. It is hardly unreasonable for arbiters to arrive at and publicly state a preliminary judgment in the face of such overwhelming evidence. This isn't moot court. ➪]! 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the phrase "moot court", could you explain? It's really a matter of principle - arbitrators are expected to be impartial. Making such statements before the case (and making them as absolutes, not just statements to current opinion) does not appear the slightest bit impartial. --] (]) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ooops, sorry. "]" is a sort of practice court that is held in law schools to help prepare lawyers for the real thing. My point was that our arbiters are volunteers, not judges, and I wouldn't expect them to remain silent on the merits of a case when the evidence is freely available on-wiki. ➪]! 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you for the clarification. I should have thought of just looking it up on Misplaced Pages! --] (]) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The main RFArb page (where cases are filed) is a public discussion between Arbs and the Community about whether a case is needed because the Community needs assistance dealing with a situation. Often the comments of an arbitrator shortly after the case is filed will differ from those made later because of the feedback of the first arbitrators commenting. If the community adds material that better explains the reason for a case, it is not uncommon for arbitrators to change their votes from reject to accept. Also as events unfold, accepting the case might be the best approach. ]] 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Certainly true, but what does that have to do with anything? --] (]) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If an arb write, ''...I think this was a bad block but I rejecting because...'', this gives the Community an opportunity to clarify the reason that a case is needed. Censoring their comments as you suggest does not change that fact that arbitrators are forming opinions based on the information presented. This approach is only a problem if the arbitrators are not willing to be open minded as more information is presented during the case. I do not find this to be true, as arbitrators that vote to reject may vote for sanctions later or vice versa. ]] 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::A lot of it isn't to do with actual impartiality, but rather the perception of impartiality. If it is perceived that the committee has already made its mind up, people will be less willing to take part in the case, particularly if they are on the side that has apparently already lost. --] (]) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I understand your concern (as do other arbs) and that is the reason that I'm discussing the issue. If you read comments on our case pages, you see that us and the community regularly struggles with how public our discussions about our cases should be. It is not a simple issue. ]] 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My $0.02. You can fight their perception about whether the block was good or bad. That is in the face of the overwhelming comments by both editors, admins and arbiters that it was bad. ] however is rarely successful. Or you can accept that it was a bad block and apologize to MONGO and absolve ] of Wheel Warring. From a pure process standpoint, the question about the block is over. The only question remaining is whether you should be sanctioned or not. You can't unring the bell so MONGO is not going to be reblocked, you are not going to be able to ever block him again or leave warnings on his talk page in any official capacity. From a pure ], your only logical course of action is apology/forgiveness. That will go a long way to healing the wounds created by the block and it would be alearning process in return. ] wouldn't approve but the community would. --] (]) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree with pretty much all of that. Since you haven't stated any reasons for you opinions, I have nothing to respond to, so I'll leave it at that. --] (]) 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration: The first stage of the next round of dispute resolution? == | |||
| So part of this weekend's excitement arises from some these newly-trendy ']'. I would like to appeal quite strongly to the committee to stop using these. Let's take a look at the one I just linked. It says, in reasonable summary: | |||
| :''Administrators may block users in accordance with the blocking policy and the prevailing consensus of the community. Such blocks may be appealed via the usual channels (excepting unblock-en?). Administrators may only so block in situations where they have no prior content involvement''. | |||
| Well, thanks for that: you just stated the standing policy and practise in about ten times as many words as I did. It changes nothing: admins do not need the committee's permission to block for any duration subject to the block finding consensual community support, and the 'appeals' process is empowered to remove, lengthen or shorten any block anyway. The remedy changes and resolves nothing. It constructs no new limits on behavior, and it creates no new tools with which to confine behavior to acceptable limits. In short, it says that editors must behave and administrators are empowered to see that they do. It fails in the committee's responsibility to ''end'' disputes, to be the ''final stage'' in dispute resolution. Such remedies merely chew the cud and limply hand the dispute back to the community for another iteration - they re-spin the wheel and nothing more. However — and this is important — because the arbitration committee has cleared its throat with respect to a particular editor/article/etc., admins with a little bit of a desire to exercise some 'actual' power take an amplifying effect from the remedy and, sheltering behind the committee's greater authority, over (re)act. Thus, 'discretionary sanctions' light fires under disputes rather than dousing them, and abdicate the committee's responsibility to reach decisions that the community has not been able to. Please stop using them, along with all the other empty platitudes that dominate arbitration outcomes at present. Regards, ] - ] 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I don't think your summary is a particularly reasonable one, as that's not what the sanction actually says:<blockquote>The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or '''any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project'''.</blockquote>(emphasis mine). We are not merely (re-)authorizing people to "block" in accordance with the "blocking policy"; we are authorizing admins to do, quite literally, whatever they feel is necessary, for whatever reason. | |||
| :Not that you don't have a good point regardless, of course. The discretionary sanctions were, at least in my initial conception of them, an answer to two major weaknesses of the current dispute resolution system: | |||
| :# The Committee doesn't rule on content—probably our last major taboo—and yet a significant number of disputes boil down to questions of POV-pushing that are intrinsically tied to content. The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions; but this admittedly comes at a certain cost. | |||
| :# Both the preliminary portion of system, and even arbitration itself, is generally incapable of dealing with valuable or popular editors that are acting inappropriately. Normal blocks against such editors tend to be quickly reversed by friendly admins, and the Committee has traditionally been reluctant to sanction them. When I first drafted the original discretionary sanctions proposal, I tried to come up with a system where sanctions were easier to impose than to remove, in order to combat this effect; the original proposal, if I recall correctly, called for summary desysoppings of anyone reversing such sanctions without adequate consensus. Obviously, the text was watered down in the final version, but the general idea remains. | |||
| :These sanctions are, however, very crude tools, as you point out. It would be much easier to work with a system properly designed for handling these sorts of disputes; but the initiative for major reform must, on some fundamental level, come from the community as a whole rather than exclusively from us. ] 17:53, 14 April 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)