| Revision as of 16:49, 4 July 2009 editTznkai (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,985 edits →Who to name as parties?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,319 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( |
|algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{/Front matter}} | |||
| <inputbox> | |||
| bgcolor= | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| prefix=Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration | |||
| break=yes | |||
| width=60 | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search archives | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | |||
| == Requesting advice re. Obama editing restriction == | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| Is it is permissible under ] (and by extension ]) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to unilaterally criticize each other? I am troubled by ongoing accusations of bad faith, trolling, and stalking made against me by an editor with whom I am not to interact. To keep my equanimity, and avoid running afoul myself of the editing restrictions, I will not follow suit, respond to the accusations, take this issue to forums other than Arbcom, or otherwise interact with the editor (hence my not mentioning them by name or notifying them). However, these personal attacks are troubling and I wish they would stop. They follow many similar accusations made both before and during the arbitration, and were themselves a subject of the arbitration. If the aim of the no-interaction remedy is to stop this, and restore a healthy editing environment, surely that remedy means to stop repeating the accusations, right?] (]) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Note - per advice I have received, I will make a request for clarification. Thanks all, ] (]) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (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) | |||
| The editor seems to be intentionally mistyping my user name (changing the numbers). | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| # <-- this edit consists of nothing more than mistyping my username. | |||
| # | |||
| I don't know if it is intended to be annoying, rude, provocative, cute... But it should stop. ] (]) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Everyking == | |||
| :@] 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? == | |||
| The observation that editors desysopped by arbcom have trouble being resysopped through RFA is valid, but so what? The community's reluctance to have them back as admins is perfectly legitimate and arbcom shouldn't second-guess it. John VDB's suggestion of probationary re-sysopping during which EK is advised to do some consensus evaluations (I think this mostly means afd) prior to reconfirmation sounds unbeneficial.. EK could instead simply enter a voluntary mentorship with some admin without being resysopped. Under the mentorship, EK would do some non-admin AFD closures for a while, with the understanding that EK could close afd's as "delete" and the mentoring admin would perform the actual deletion (without necessarily endorsing it--the closures would be reviewable at DRV like any other afd closures). After doing this for a while, EK could start another RFA and invite participants to check out his recent afd closures. No temporary or probationary resysopping is required. ] (]) 06:44, 28 June 2009 (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) | |||
| Can someone please put the box that showed the status of all open arb cases at the upper right corner back? Removing it has made following Arbcom cases significantly more annoying. ] (]) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not been removed; it's just that now you have to scroll down below the TOC, and it's not pink anymore. ] ] 05:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can't find it either at 9.41 UTC. ] (]) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Egad == | ||
| == Definition of an (un)involved admin == | |||
| Since my comments were moved (, ) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : When the arbitration enforcement thread mentions a case that bears your username, that is probably a sign you are involved as least in the eyes of the users who seek to apply that case. Even if they are completely wrong, it would be beneficial for you to let your peers handle such matters. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Which case in question bears my username? Digwuren or EE? EE was renamed ''exactly'' because people got confused about this. The EE arbcom case did not mention anything about my judgment not being sound; in fact the majority of findings and rulings involved other editors, not me. That I am from EE doesn't mean I am involved in all the editing going there; I make comments as uninvolved admin in cases where I have not participated in a particular editing conflict. If there is some other criteria for determining (un)involvement, it should be clearly stated somewhere. Please note that I have never attempted to use my admin tools to close a debate or pass / enforce a decision. However, I believe I have the right to be seen as neutral for the purpose of discussion. That I am from EE or that somebody cries "he is involved" without citing any evidence is no reason to disqualify someone (I could just as well claim you are involved because we interacted in the past and you made comments about editors from EE... which I won't, because that would be ABF and plain ridiculous). Finally, please read my essay on ]. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Piotrus, if your level of involvement in these areas were to be the benchmark for uninvolvedness we might as well delete ]. I think you should just respect the judgment and intelligence of guys like Jehochmen when they say you are involved. They are no fools, and so trying to argue around it will be rather pointless I think. ] (<small>]</small>) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The argument "You are involved because you are Piotrus" somehow fails to convince me. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well Piotrus, the whole purpose of a ] is that it's supposed to be thoroughly unconvincing. ;) ] (<small>]</small>) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Piotrus, as you were the subject of substantive findings in both the ''Digwuren'' and ''Eastern European disputes'' cases, you are considered involved ''per se'' for the purposes of any enforcement matter stemming from either case. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. Are there any other <s>arbitrators</s> administrators who are involved in a similar fashion, or am I the only one? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Assuming you mean "administrators", I believe Deacon of Pndapetzim is the only other one to be the subject of findings in these cases (or at least the only one I recall being an administrator at the time the findings were written). ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I refrain from admin involvement when I know in my heart I can't act fairly, and I think we should be able to trust admins to do this. Other rules of thumb are gameable and unworthy. You stay out when you can't be fair. By extension, if Piotrus was interested there'd be no reason why he couldn't act as an admin in a dispute between Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, or two Russian nationalists, but the rule of thumb above seems to prevent this. I suppose we have to live in reality though. ] (<small>]</small>) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The fallacy here is that every admin who becomes involved in those issues will be eventually listed as a party to some arbcom and will thus find himself unable to act on AE... I find it a bit strange. Still, the above clarification is helpful - at least now we know were we are standing. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: That would be true if the criterion were merely being listed as a party, but that's not the point I'm making. Other administrators (e.g. Alex Bakharev) were parties to the case, but there were no (adverse) findings about them in the decisions issued. In your case, however, and in Deacon's, the case resulted in substantive and adverse findings about your conduct. | |||
| :::::::: I have no problem, generally speaking, if administrators who are merely listed as parties, for whatever reason, continue to work in enforcement after the case concludes; but it's not a good idea, in my view, for someone who was actually found to have acted improperly to do so. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: "Substantive"? ] (<small>]</small>) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: As opposed to findings which did not really say anything about the subject's editing, such as the various "no evidence has been presented" findings in ''Eastern European disputes''. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Alright ... thanks. I think "adverse" on its own would have covered it. ] (<small>]</small>) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: That's probably true. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: Does the "you've had an adverse finding in a ArbCom case" in your view rule out any admin involvement in the topic area generally, or is it just for AE matters? ] (<small>]</small>) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: I'm content to leave that up to the individual administrator's good judgment and the normal policies about admin involvement. Unless we do something like explicitly prohibiting you from taking admin actions in an area as part of a remedy (which I believe we've done in the past?), you can assume that we're not taking a stance on general admin activity. The involvement with the case itself presumptively covers discussions directly related to the case (i.e. enforcement threads for it), but not necessarily anything broader than that. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Who to name as parties? == | |||
| Do I need to add other parties to the new request I have opened today re use of disputed/occupied territories etc.? I've not named anyone and what to focus on how to resolve this matter rather than on individuals. An option could be to name every contributor to the 19 threads I have identified this year, but that seems excessive. Also I have noticed several editors since topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine area among the previous contributors. On the other hand picking out individuals (the admin who closed the RfC? the editor who questioned his appropriateness as an impartial judge? etc) might seem invidious. I'm tempted just to flag this matter at the IPCOLL and the Wikiprojetcs for Israel, Palestine and Syria. Any views?--] (]) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes you should. Use your best judgment in picking users who are likely to want to be informed about any decision request and will have something to say on the issue. Please also ask a clerk for assistance in formatting your request.--] (]) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration statistics 2009 - half-year summary == | |||
| Through the first half of 2009, the Arbitration Committee considered 111 requests, voted on 41 motions, publicly heard 19 cases, and drafted and voted on 928 case proposals. | |||
| There were 59 case requests, open on average for five days, with 63% declined, 29% accepted, 7% disposed by motion and one withdrawn. There were 52 clarifications and other requests, open on average for 11 days. Motions were open on average for four days, with 61% passing. Cases were open on average for 60 days, with the longest being open for nearly five and a half months. | |||
| With respect to case requests, Wizardman had the highest voting percentage of 93, followed closely by Casliber with 89, against an average of 61, and a low of zero. Coren and Stephen Bain shared the highest accept percentage of 53, and Vassyana had the highest decline percentage of 80. With respect to clarifications and other requests, Vassyana commented on the most (32). Overall, Carcharoth could be considered to have been the most active, with the lowest DNA (did not act) percentage of 18, against an average of 47 and a high of 86. With respect to motions, John Vandenberg had the highest voting percentage of 79, with many arbs following closely behind, against an average of 59 and a low of 18. | |||
| Wizardman drafted over a quarter of the cases (five) with Newyorkbrad drafting three, while John Vandenberg drafted the largest case, as measured by number of proposals (186, 100 passing), and Rlevse drafted the second largest (132, 98 passing). Six arbs were virtually tied for the highest case proposal voting percentage: Carcharoth and Sam Blacketer, (with 94) and FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, and Wizardman (with 93). Arguably, Rlevse was on average the quickest to act on case proposals, with Casliber second. | |||
| Comparing Apr-Jun with Jan-Mar, the number of case requests declined 36% and the percentage of cases accepted declined 15%, thus the number of cases accepted was almost halved. The number of clarifications and other requests increased 74%, the number of cases closed more than doubled, and the number of case proposals considered increased by more than five times. | |||
| Comparing the first half of 2009, with the first half of 2008, the number of case requests dropped dramatically from 105 to 59, continuing an apparent trend, and the number cases heard dropped from 27 to 19, while the average case duration nearly doubled from 32 days to 60. | |||
| For complete details see: ]. | |||
| ] ] 19:32, 2 July 2009 (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)