| Revision as of 04:54, 2 July 2008 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Disgrace← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,337 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}} | |||
| == Archived request == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| Can I ask why before any decision was taken by the arbitrators?--] (]) 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I archived the case because it was stale - there had been no comments from arbitrators for 3 weeks, and it didn't look like there was going to be a real attempt to create an unban motion. Two arbitrators said no to an unbanning, two were vice versa - but given the lack of further comments, it was archived. ] 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your reply, but I would like to understand better how these things work. Who had the right to create an "unban motion"?--] (]) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's the arbitrators that do that. Given that the request was open for a long time, with no comments for three weeks, I presume it's because no-one felt strongly enough that an unban was warrented, or perhaps they were just too busy to look at it. You could always request a new clarification and request an unban - maybe more arbitrators would comment on the side of unbanning and choose to take it to voting. ] 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you sure I can? In the past I have been accused of forum shopping when I tried to re-ask a request which was archived before any formal conclusion was reached (actually there were admins who suggested I could have been punished for that).--] (]) 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Repeating the exact same request for the third time in what, a month, is pointless. It's clear the Arbs are not ready to unblock him at the current time. If they feel like they want to unblock him before some reasonable amount of time has passed (I suggest three months w/o socking, then unblock with restrictions), I'm sure they will let us know. - ] (]) 01:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If the arbs are not ready to unblock why didn't they reject the request?--] (]) 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The new case was rejected. The motion was rejected in the sense that the Arbs chose to take no action on it. This is what happens to many motions. You seem to think they are not aware of SoD's situation. They are, and have said they are discussing it. Badgering them for the nth time about the issue will do no good. Bring it up again in a couple months when the passage of time will have made a material difference, or let them come to a decision internally. - ] (]) 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not supposed to think anything about their awareness or interest about the case, even if a third person say he know what is happening behind the scene. The decision of the arbs are the result of their vote. If there is no vote there is no decision. Why didn't the arbs voted to reject if there was cosnensus on rejecting?--] (]) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::We generally don't do that -- there's no such thing as a vote to reject -- there's just the absence of, or the impossibility of, a vote to accept. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Ok but I still do not think it is appropriate to speak about "rejection" when a request recieved few comments without a clear consensus: rejection means "I disagree", not "I'm not going to express on this".--] (]) 08:12, 29 June 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) | |||
| I'd appreicate some comments in the above thread, regards - ] 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| In ], {{user|Privatemusings}} was restricted from editing any ] due to apparent past issues, but now in ] he has stated that | |||
| <blockquote>'m now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all.</blockquote> | |||
| is an individual really able to overturn an arbcom restriction merely because they think they have changed their own behavior? I'll note that 3 arbitrators seem to agree with continuing the restriction, can someone clue me in as to what is going on here? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've warned him about editing BLP's. The remedy is still in effect and he can't lift the sanction himself. Hopefully that will be the end of it. ] 01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd tend to agree... PM is a good guy, someone I greatly respect for his perseverance and his attempts to add value in a lot of novel ways, but even PM can't just ignore a ruling/sanction. If no admin chose to enforce the sanction, it would be unenforced, but Ryan has already said he's warned him. I would support a block over this, with some considerable regret. PM, don't do it. Appeal the sanction and ask that it be lifted early, instead. I think you'd get massive support for that. ++]: ]/] 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was not aware he was violating his restriction (hey, no one can watch every wiki edit ;-). No editor can overturn their own restriction. If he violates again, let one of us know.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <- I'm a bit bummed at the way my request for the sanction to be lifted has worked out :-( - I get the impression (for example from Lar above) that some people who might have wanted to comment hadn't noticed it - although I was very grateful for the comments it did receive. I think it was pretty active up until today - maybe it could be restored, allowing the 3 arb.s who've commented to date to respond further, and the other arb.s to comment if they wish...? thoughts and advice most welcome. cheers, ] (]) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :ps. I certainly won't edit BLPs at all. ] (]) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd support not archiving it just yet, I suppose. However 3 arbs commented "not yet" to you, more or less. I can recall repeatedly pleading to get some sort of feedback on a matter where I was implementing a ruling that was rather novel/controversial/contentious, and was delighted to get even ''one'' arbitrator to comment. So 3 is rather a lot, really. They all said the same thing really. Keep doing what you're doing and the restriction should be lifted. Hopefully soon. ++]: ]/] 03:16, 27 June 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| At the request of retiring ] I have moved this page from his user space to Misplaced Pages namespace and brought it live. I have notified Jimbo Wales of this at his user talk page and invited him to make a statement. Likewise, I encourage the members of the Committee (past and present) who have not yet commented publicly to make a statement. Although it is probably impossible to arrange a comprehensive statement on short notice, a short provisional declaration signed by as many people are available tonight may provide a welcome stabilizing force. The community would like input from the people who know the background on today's developments. A baseline statement would help settle the present confusion. With respect, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Egad == | ||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :accept/reject/recue/comment - the latter is if an arbitrator doesn't make a decision on whether to accept the case, and simply wants to make a comment or ask a question. ] 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Waiting for further input. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) Thanks ] (]) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disgrace== | |||
| To see within an hour after the case is submitted is a true disgrace. We have two very respected admins here (not without fault like all of us) and certainly stepping back and reflecting on this is useful. Instead, ArbCom members rush to accept the case and produce another drama-grande with no (at this point) sign that this can bring any useful solution for which the price of this drama is going to be paid. While at it, the much bigger drama which puts the very legitimacy of this arbcom caused by one Arbitrator and the sloppiness (in the very least) of the large part of the rest in allowing such thing to happen is still raging and ArbCom members who are under a very urgent moral obligation to clear this up are "too busy" to do that allowing this mess to protract. And instead, they rush to accept another Giano-related matter right when the steam is mostly gone. Call me naive but seeing everything I've seen here, I did not expect this. --] 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :How do you know it's a disgrace, yet? It could be pretty quick and drama-free, if they just want to quickly clarify their position on wheel warring. The facts of the case are simple enough and already apparent; I doubt much intensive effort would be needed to settle this one. I appreciate the "both admins should accept a trout-slap and move on" sentiment, but if similar things have happened too often before, maybe they want to put a bit more force behind it. Why not give them a chance and see what they do before assuming it'll turn out badly? ] ] 00:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Friday, you know this place much better to seriously suggest that this could be "be pretty quick and drama-free". While the other drama is still rocking precisely because they are ducking out hoping it would somehow dissolve, they eagerly rush to accept this instead. --] 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, what ''Arbcom'' does can be quick and low-drama. What other people do is up to those other people. If there are sanctions, people will howl about those sanctions. If there are not sanctions, different people will howl about there not being sanctions. Whether Arbcom addresses this issue or not won't necessarily cause any ''more'' drama. The drama we get is whatever we get. It's already out there. ] ] 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: While it's rare, I must disagree with Friday on this occasion. Until the commitee demonstrates that it can actually reduce drahma, it needs to stop <s>creating</s> enabling it. See the comments on the request page for links to recent cases where they've made limp-wristed or inneffectual decisions. There is very little in the way of "resolution" coming out of the commitee when dealing with issues of this nature, and the rush to accept here is more of the same, particularly in light of the semi-consensus among non-arbs that this is a non-event. - <font color="black">]</font> 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think the purpose of the committee is to reduce drama, which itself is becoming an irritating byword for any points of view people don't like and with which they loudly disagree. <strong style="color:#000">]</strong> 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The purpose of the committe is dispute resolution. How many of the recent dramas (as in "the quality of being arresting or highly emotional") have actually been put to bed by the input of the commitee? - <font color="black">]</font> 01:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That can at least partly be attributed to the intractability of the disputes ArbCom gets and the weakness of the tools at their disposal, not to mention the readiness of the community to challenge any outcome and test any limits. The easy problems don't need the ArbCom, and often the hard problems are beyond their power to resolve. <strong style="color:#000">]</strong> 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The solution to that is different tools, not doing the same thing over and over; one can only hope that some of the alternatives currently under discussion are tried for a change. The same thing goes for administrators, there is a reliance on the "mechanical" tools (blocking, page protection, etc) rather than the softer side of adminning - leading, counselling, and so on. While it does not surprise me that this case is before Arbcom, it is very unfortunate that there was insufficient discussion with the two administrators involved to assist them in seeing that there might have been errors made, for example, and rather than being faced with having to apologise or to correct an action taken, there are now public calls for desysopping. It was unnecessary to escalate this so quickly when other avenues had barely been examined; surely we have more to offer than just big sticks with which to achieve compliance. ] (]) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Irpen, you've made your utter distaste of ArbCom known for the last couple of days, we hear you. I tend to agree that they are overstepping in some areas, but really WMC needs to be sanctioned this time around. He's managed to stave off a number of RFARs and RFCs, but his conduct to revert Avi's good faith attempt to avoid a wheel war was really bad. That this all happened without a single peep on AN/I was also disturbing. Yes, there had been discussion on AE for the initial block, but subsequent discussion is needed when there is a dispute between administrators. --] (]) 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I voted to accept the case based on the fact that it is unacceptable for any of these people, all long-term users, to behave in this way. I think the arbitration committee would be failing in its purpose if we put avoiding drama ahead of doing the right thing. As to warnings, I believe all involved have been warned before, in some cases multiple times. | |||
| :As to other matters, the committee has agreed that the OrangeMarlin issue need not be handled through arbitration, as he has undertaken to reform and be mentored. We have been vigorously performing an analysis of our communication and our internal procedures as well. ] (]:]) 04:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Dragon, please note that I never condemned the ArbCom in strong terms prior to the events that unfolded recently despite I was greatly displeased by some of its previous actions. I refrained from strong public condemnation of this ArbCom earlier because I thought that despite all its faults, we are better to preserve some degree of respect to the ArbCom ''as an institution'' and an all out attack on this arbcom by the long-standing editors may undermine its capability to address the Misplaced Pages problems in any way at all. However, the ArbCom itself has done just that by allowing this disgraceful incident of a Wikipedian in good standing been tried in some sort of a ] with the arbcom acting as an activisti agent, the arbcom member serving a plaintiff, a detective, a prosecutor and a judge all in one (he did not recuse), the accused editor being not even informed, let alone allowed to face the accusation and present his side of the story. | |||
| This cannot be a fault of a single arbitrator who organized it as the ArbCom allowed this all to proceed. I asked the arbitrators some very pointed questions to understand how much of this mess is the fault of the ArbCom as a whole body and utter evasiveness of the answers I received convinced me that the matter is not just one arbitrator going rogue but the whole committee being responsible for this shame (even if through incompetence entirely, while this is unlikely to be the only reason.) Arbitrators were begged to provide a straightforward and forthcoming explanation by many editors including those who very rarely agreed with each other. Such an explanation might have helped us to get out from this pity state of affairs with minimal damage and the arbcom that can still function. None of that came out but such excuses as busyness, intensity of discussions they are carrying were involved. | |||
| '''So, we have a grave emergency that endangers the entire dispute resolution at Misplaced Pages and instead of trying to reduce the damage of this catastrophic fall of its prestige and ability to function, arbcom within an hour accepts another case on Giano-matters.''' I have reservations about WMC for a long time but none of this warrants an immediate action. Even if he has to be desysopped (I am yet not convinced) Misplaced Pages will not suffer if this is carried out even a month later. | |||
| Even finally acting upon its promise to address the IRC matters at "some later point", made by this ArbCom half a year ago, is more urgent. With so many truly crucial and pressing matters and arbs being "too busy" to address them, arbcom accepts this case on the incident when the situation already cooled down by itself. This is incomprehensibly irresponsible. --] 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Red pill, blue pill== | |||
| You know, a lot of nonsense is talked about the Arbitration Committee. Supposedly it's failing and the place is all falling to bits because it's too heavy-handed, too lenient, too impotent, legislating from the bench, or ''name your own pet hate''. But looking at the cases it's been running lately I'm seeing some pretty good stuff. Article probations handed out, lots of power devolved to administrators, incoming case loads diminishing by the week. At this rate the arbitration committee will have remedied itself out of a job in a couple of years! | |||
| I would have advised arbcom not to touch this latest case, except maybe for some aabitrators to clarify wheel warring in some pretty stiffly worded "this is the last chance saloon"-style case rejections, and perhaps some behind-the-scenes work to give everybody that patented Misplaced Pages "I'm a fluffy bunny and I will make the internet not suck" glow. | |||
| But nyah, what do I know? I think it's time for the Committee to revisit wheel warring. | |||
| Widely criticised for some reason that isn't clear to me, as "making policy", the ] (BLPBAN) of the "Footnoted quotes" arbitration case is actually a lovely hybrid of two quite different remedies, the red pill and the blue pill, to be taken both together. | |||
| * The red pill component of BLPBAN is a very broad topic probation. Articles containing statements the fall under the BLP are subject to an enhanced focus, and admins are to counsel and warn users not complying, and may take extensive further action, at their discretion, if that fails. | |||
| * The blue pill component of BLPBAN cuts in if the red pill starts to kill the patient. Its purpose is to kill incipent wheel wars. Actions under the red pill may be appealed directly to arbcom. Failing that, they can be overturned by community consensus after an appeal on ]. Admins reversing or modifying such an action without a successful appeal face dire consequences. | |||
| This is a lovely combination. It gives admins their head to resolve a problem, but makes sure they don't go mad and shag the goldfish. | |||
| Perhaps a similar blue pill could be tacked on to Giano's civility restriction in the ]. If Wikipedians know they can appeal a bad block under that remedy directly to arbcom I suspect they're far less likely to get itchy trigger fingers and want to reverse or modify the block without consensus. If they really feel that the ban is wrong, an appeal should be all that is needed. | |||
| And if they're feeling especially bold, retrospectively add a blue pill to all extant editing restrictions, probations, etc. --] 04:24, 2 July 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)