Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:38, 30 August 2009 editWikidemon (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Obama articles: ChildofMidnight: respond← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,124 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 52) (botTag: Replaced
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}		<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}}
			<!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. -->
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index
			\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes
			}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|maxarchivesize = 500k
	\|counter = 5
	\|~~algo~~ = ~~old(4d)~~		\|counter = 52
			\|minthreadsleft = 0
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(10d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			'''Behaviour on this page:''' This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
	{{shortcut\|WT:AC/N\|WT:ACN}}

	= Discussion of agenda =
	]


	= Discussion of announcements =
	== Reduced activity: 23–31 August 2009 ==

	]

	*Any particular reason why? And if so, why was it intentionally omitted? That seems spectacularly unhelpful. ''÷]'' 07:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
	:* Does the reason matter, except inasmuch as it satisfies the curiosity of individual Wikipedians? <tt>:P</tt> ] 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
	* It wasn't intentionally omitted: it ended up on the cutting room floor by mistake. Significant numbers of arbs travelling is the main reason.  ] <sup>]</sup> 07:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

	* I volunteer to be ArbCom's stand-in while they're gone. Address all your arbitration needs to ] during the eight days of no ArbCom. <code>;]</code> —] (]) 07:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

	:What exactly was the vote for? - ] (]) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	::For some time now, all official AC decisions have been decided by vote. ] ] 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::Exactly. But what was the decision here? Was Rlevse denying the other arbitrators their vacation? ;-) ] (]) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::Rlevse would have to answer that. But the decision is given in the text of the announcement ]. ] ] 03:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::::You're clearly missing the point which is that this level of bureaucracy looks foolish. At least that is the point I was trying to make. - ] (]) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, it does rather. I confess, having been away when this board came into being, that it rather amuses me. I presume it stems from the wish for greater openness about ArbComn decisions. It is self-evidently bureaucratic, but this is felt to be counterbalanced by the need to publicise which Arbitrators support what. Given that I argued for greater openness in the last election, that is certainly a good thing. But I'm not sure it really promotes that much "openness". The discussions that lead to motions, even really trivial ones like this one, remain hidden. The reasons for Arbs supporting or opposing these motions is usually unclear. Real openness would surely require moving some of the discussion of these decisions to the wiki rather than keeping them on the list. This seems a prime example of a motion where no secrecy over the discussion behind it is necessary. My hope for the future would be that ArbCom give very serious thought in each case to whether their deliberations actually need to private at all - if not, move them back to the wiki. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 12:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::There has been discussion aimed at making much of the "administrative" internal discussion open and on-wiki (for motions involving sanctions where there is no need for consideration of private evidence, or no real urgency to act swiftly, we would probably use the newly-resurrected ]). A wide-ranging discussion on what should be done off-wiki and what should be done on-wiki as regards arbitration business is long overdue. WJBscribe, if you would like to start such a discussion, that would be good (this, and much of what follows, is my personal opinion only). Timing it for after the recess, when more arbitrators are here, would probably be best.
	:::::::My initial views are that the actual discussions of bans and sanctions is sometimes (often) sensitive, and there is often a need for a private space in which to be frank in discussions, normally ones where the evidence is clear, but there is disagreement on the level of sanctions. But yes, the administrative discussions and decisions could well be taken on-wiki (the discussion for internal motions usually takes place on the arbwiki, not the mailing list).
	:::::::Some of the arguments against this include: the inevitable minority opposition to almost any sort of change that would distract from just taking a "working practices" decision and getting on with things; and (my argument) that the community should have primary say in the arbitration policy (the new draft of which hasn't been forgotten, and which was developed with community input) and that the committee should have the flexibility (within the limits of that policy) to change their working practices to suit different committees year-by-year (as the composition changes due to elections). If each of those sort of changes was micromanaged by the community (or the small subset of the community who take an interest in this sort of thing), then there would be a danger of placing future committees in a strait-jacket as regards changes to their working practices. Some of these working practices were unwritten, and it has helped to formalise them on the "procedures" page.
	:::::::Your point about asking individual arbs what their reasons for support or opposition are, has been followed in some cases - look through the talk pages archives and you will see examples of arbs being asked their reasons and them answering - though I agree that more on-wiki vote rationales at the time of publication would help (or indeed moving on-wiki entirely, but note that even on-wiki some arbitrators don't give reasons for their votes or failures to vote).
	:::::::As for the noticeboard, one of the big advantages of this is that it is a central venue where all changes and decisions are announced, allowing people to follow a single venue and also allowing a chronological view of what arbitration business has been done, and also to encourage comments at this talk page (look through the archives for examples of such discussions). Previously, decisions were archived in many different venues, and it was difficult to keep track of them all. The noticeboard proved very handy when I compiled a report on what had been done in the first half of this year. And for those like WJBscribe who have been away, the following three links to things I've mentioned above would be a good starting point if you want to comment or give feedback: ], ], ].
	:::::::Reading the latter page reminds me that this concept of a "recess" should be added there, and that ] didn't get added to the procedures page. And reading the half-year report, I see that I noted that out of "88 announcements at the arbitration noticeboard", a full 16 were announcements of "changes to internal Arbitration Committee processes". Anyone can generate that list by going back through the noticeboard archives. A list of what I included in that stat will be in the fuller report, but as it is based on public on-wiki pages, I will provide that list on request if anyone asks at the discussion page for the report. ] (]) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	This looks like "Arbitration Committee Vacation". <font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 03:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

	:In Argentina ? ] (]) 03:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	::For many of us, I suppose. I know for a fact that I'll be there (I'm leading a panel on day two), and so will a number of my colleagues. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::Ah yes, "leading a panel". Of course that's what elected officials do in Argentina. ;) ] (]) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::... what? — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::::See ]. ]] 13:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Ah! :-) — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Motion regarding The Rambling Man ==

	]

	== Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Keeblesound and Arindamp ==

	''']'''

	I'm not sure I agree with the unblocking of {{User\|Mrinal Pandey}}, but I trust the appeals subcommittee knows what they are doing. That said, I do feel it would have been a nice gester to have been contacted prior to the unblock seeing as I was the blocking administrator. Maybe that can be incorporated into the BASCs SOP? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

	:That is a good idea and we should have thought of that. Sorry. Anyway, the unblock has some conditions so hopefully things will go smoothly. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Arbitration motion regarding ] ==

	''']'''

	I am dismayed by this development. Within 24 hours of this announcement, the atmosphere at MoS and related pages has palpably changed for the worse as parties who were under restriction immediately returned to revert each other at the MoS pages and introduce aggressive rhetoric into the Talk pages. Looking , it's already started again. Despite his that he is "not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes", PMAnderson has already been on the Talk pages with , , and oops, that wasn't aggressive enough, going back again to beef it up with . Editors (including myself) who were driven away from the MoS pages by the constant warring were finally coming back and getting some work done. I fear we are going to devolve again. --] ] 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

	:The amendment explicitly leaves open the potential for further amendment based on evolving circumstances; editors involved in the case would be wise to be wary of repeating past actions on new guideline topics. The amendment also reminds editors addressed by the remedy to be careful to abide by all applicable policies and to be civil when discussing other style guidelines. To me that suggests complaints of incivility or edit warring by covered editors belong at ]. ]] 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
	::I have gone out on a limb and stood up for the editors affected by this amendment based on my impression that most if not all of them understand the seriousness with which their prior behavior was viewed and that they need to behave in a civil and professional fashion going forward. As to most of them, I trust that this will be the case. If any of these editors misuse the second chance that has been given to them and lapse into chronic incivility or offensive behavior, I am going to be very disappointed and angry. Please feel free to draw this comment to the attention of anyone whom reading it may benefit. ] (]) 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Andy Walsh misstates what I said, which was ''Noetica's '''question''' is therefore ] and irrelevant tp the issue at hand''. I was asked repeatedly, "Why does a given piece of text mean X?" It means Y, which directly contradicts X, and I suggested clarifications which make it beyond doubt that it means Y. At the third repetition, the ''question'' does become tendentious, irrelevant, and inflammatory, just like the notoriously unanswerable question quoted. Doubtless the next accusation will be that I called Noetica a wife-beater</irony>; do let me know.

	:This is precisely the sort of attack of which Carcharoth complained at the amendment discussion. I have now answered the questions asked of me during the last few months, and responded to the current proposals on WT:MOS. I am now going to offer Noetica my support - and unless my opinion is asked, or a particularly imbecilic provision is brought to my attention, I do indeed intend to continue the experiment of seeing how MOS evolves without my help. ] <small>]</small> 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

	*Please see also ], also compiled in the last 24 hours, as an example of what I can do for MOS. ] <small>]</small> 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	*And is somebody willing to take over ], so I can leave without abandoning it? ] <small>]</small> 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

	Thank you for raising this Andy Walsh. I too am disappointed by the breakdown that has happened in the previous day or two (e.g. ]). For PMAnderson it is not enough to make a comment as to his preferred wording (re. the original "nineteen" issue); instead, he is personalising the discussion ("''prejudices of six editors''", "''six 'usual suspects' ''"), in an attempt to bully other editors as he continues his crusade of undoing the work of thousands of editors at the various MOSs (See ] for PMAnderson's true agenda: e.g. "''<nowiki>WP:MOSNUM is declared historic. It shall be tagged {{historic}} and kept protected; neither it, nor any of the material it now contains, shall be considered to have any more force than an editor's opinion, for all purposes including WP:WIAFA</nowiki>''").<br />
	Regarding "''...as an example of what I can do for MOS''", yes, it is true that PMAnderson can take part (and has taken part) in rational discussion at the MOS, however for some reason it is all too easy for him not to.<br />
	] 04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	:''Thousands'' of editors? This current Crusade against ''nineteenth-century'' is the work of six editors, and long though it is, MOSNUM doesn't contain ''that'' many edicts. I am pleased to see that A. di M. is currently attempting to clean up the mess; but if he fails, as all before him, have failed, we ''should'' pull the plug on this swamp. It's a breeding place for controversy, and a indiscriminate mass of unsourced, uncited, arbitrary and silly edicts made up in class one day. ] <small>]</small> 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	::I was of course referring to the multitude of editors who have worked on the various MOSs at WP over the years (you have stated that you would like to see all their work marginalised). Incidentally, it hasn't been a "''swamp''" recently—prior to a certain event a day or two ago. ] 06:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::That's counting thousands of editors who have singly protested some crusade; most of them have been revert-warred out of MOS by a combination of two or three Crusaders; I suppose I should be honored by attracting six. ] <small>]</small> 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' Thanks Andy. Probably because of the bans (which I was not aware of) I do not know these people or the history of the case, and neither am I interested. All I know is that I want a relatively stable MOSNUM. To have it constantly changing underfoot helps nobody. When it changes, as it did, more than 20 times in one day, how can an article editor expect to conform to it? I politely requested, at the MOSNUM talk page (section "Flurry of edits", that matters were sorted out in talk ''before'' making the edits, with mixed success. I have no interest in any personal conflicts here, and simply refuse to get dragged in to any, I just want a stable, and better, MOSNUM. ] (]) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

	:This entire discussion arises from an issue typical of MOSNUM, a Crusade even more useless to Misplaced Pages than date delinking. Because Andy and a half-dozen of his friends like to write ''19th-century'' (the adjective), they ] a rule that nobody may use ''nineteenth-century''. (I'm for permitting both, myself.) Look for yourselves; I'm not making this up.

	:Such Crusades may be expected to continue indefinitely (unless these good souls - on this issue, Andy, HWV258, and Goodmorningworld - are outnumbered, which is unlikely to happen; it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS); since there is always a new point on which Misplaced Pages should be forced to carry out this self-appointed Committee's opinions, MOSNUM will not be stable until they are banned, even if nobody opposes them. Judging from the level of improvement to MOS attained here and in the date-delinking controversy, I do not expect this turbulence to result in much improvement either.

	:As you will see, the discussion, Noetica aside, is also contrary to ]: ''Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer.'' and ''a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense''.

	:As I said some time ago, I will leave others to reform this if they can; but I do intend to ignore any rule imposed by a vocal minority not supported by general consensus or by English usage; nor I do not see that the page serves WP in any way - <s>except I suppose to keep these editors too busy to edit content.</s> ] <small>]</small> 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

	:: I shouldn't be editing content? Beyond offensive, and another display of what got you banned from the pages to begin with. --] ] 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::Feel free to prove yourself more capable at that than at this specious charge, or than in attempting to reform the English language. I should like a pleasant surprise from Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::: I'll continue to work on WP as I always do. I will also disengage from conversation with you because I don't feel you capable of communicating without insulting people. I will be filing a request for enforcement later this evening to have you removed from the MoS pages again, and will inform you when I have done so. --] ] 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::Shrug. Striking, in the interests of harmony - although this is an editor who believes that if we simply allow everyone to edit, , and who has dishonestly represented my edit here. ] <small>]</small> 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

	::I feel it is important to leave the above diatribe as a permanent reminder of Pmanderson's true agenda at WP.
	::Regarding "...not supported by general consensus or by English usage;...". Hmmm; please note the following results:
	::*Google search of "nineteenth-century" results in 13,500,000 matches.
	::*Google search of "19th-century" returns 73,400,000 matches.
	::*WP search of "nineteenth-century" returns 3,911 matches.
	::*WP search of "19th-century" returns 10,204.
	::While this is not the forum for such specifics, I hope the above points out how out-of-touch PManderson is with the modern world (and WP's role in that world), and gives an inkling why he is constantly at odds with other editors at WP. It is worth noting that nowhere above was there a denial of the true agenda that I pointed out. Lastly, "''...it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS''" is beneath contempt, and is bordering on actionable.
	::] 23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::I acknowledge that I would prefer not to have a manual of style, rather than have one decided by someone who determines grammatical issues by Google search - and then misreads the search. We don't have to pick one; and if thirteen million people use ''nineteenth-century'', it is a well-established and widely-used form. One could do similar searches for ''color'' and ''colour'' - but we don't. ] <small>]</small> 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::(ec)My goodness—another departure from reality by an editor who cannot tolerate being shown having weakness. I didn't "''determine grammatical issues by Google search''" (this is a consensus-driven project, and I don't ''determine'' anything on my own). I was simply attempting to inject some reality into the discussion. It is truly bizarre to meet someone whom when demonstrated that between 2.5 and 5 times the people prefer to use one format over another, persists in the minority view. I'm used to dealing with people/editors who take more than nine minutes to consider their position when shown such weighty evidence, so I hope everyone reading this can begin to understand my distress in having to deal with someone who has such a belligerent and stubborn approach to "discussion". PMAnderson has consistently misrepresented the purpose of the various MOSs at WP (for his own stated agenda) and continues to argue (to everyone's annoyance) from that faulty basis. It is becoming tiresome and boring. In my humble opinion, PMAnderson should receive a lifetime ban from editing or commenting on any WP MOS page. That would both free him to contribute to other areas of the project (which he does well), and leave alone the people who are keen to progress in defining a worthwhile MOS for the benefit of ''all'' Wikipedians.
	::::To PMAnderson: have the maturity to unwatch the various MOS pages and simply walk away. When we start to discuss issues such as "19th" versus "nineteenth", we are not interested in embarking on a discussion of the philosophy behind ''having'' a MOS. Everyone of your "contributions" to the MOS discussions reverts to your agenda-driven debate (which diverts from the basis of the original question posed by a Wikipedian—in this case ]). Surely by now you can see how pointless it is for you to devolve each and every discussion you take part in? In addition, your edits simply serve to scare away the average editor who is merely seeking clarification in many instances. If you really want to abolish/diminish/downgrade the various MOSs, then please start that debate as a separate RfC and see what sort of response you get; oh, that's right, you already have: ] and ] (do I need to add more text as to the outcome of those discussions?). ] 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Indeed? What is the "purpose of the various MOS's", in your own words? Their only ''function'' appears to be to permit self-appointed Language Reformers to yell "MOS breach! this article used ''nineteenth-century''! Change this horror or be denied FA/denied GA/have to face edit wars with meddlesome bots"; this irrelevant noise supplants all too much of FA's actual effectiveness. ] <small>]</small> 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	Folks, this page is not intended as a forum for debating style rules. Truly, if you feel the spirit or letter of an arbitration remedy has been violated, it belongs at ]. Please don't continue your dispute here. ]] 23:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Agree with Nathan. And one point for Pmanderson - he said: ''"it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS"'' - that's not true actually. I was largely unaware of the 19th/nineteenth-century dispute (though my jaw hangs open in disbelief that people can really argue over such things, I can well believe it as I have sometimes fallen into that trap). It was something to do with the date delinking dispute that made me disillusioned with MOS. To be more specific, it was actual incivility that I encountered at MOS. I have never had any problems with people politely arguing their case, even if I think the discussion is pointless, but when people get upset and start using forceful words and overblown rhetoric, that is a sure sign things are escalating. If I could change one thing about the atmosphere at MOS, it would be to add ] to the mix. ] (]) 01:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	::What I am attempting to avoid is the same class of editor telling some newbie to change their spelling. This will lose us editors, without benefiting the encyclopedia. ] <small>]</small> 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::There is a very simple solution to this which is already functional at 99% of Misplaced Pages's articles: treat the MOS as an essay rather than a guideline and follow any reliably published paper and ink style guide you want. Hard copy style guides are inherently superior to wiki-based style guides--if for no other reason than that they are more stable and less prone to internal squabbling. It's really outside ArbCom's remit to implement this solution (which could be spelled out in full in about three paragraphs, with provisions for wiki-specific formatting). So shall we start an RfC to deprecate the darned thing? Let's commit ourselves to ''content'', not hyphens and ellipses. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::Then I would indeed unwatch it. As long as there are bots, and as long as Language Reformers can use FA and GA to get their way, that would be a real improvement. Where do we start? ] <small>]</small> 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::::The basic concept is this: open an RfC on the guideline status of the MoS and propose an alternate solution. The bulk of Misplaced Pages's internal MOS would be demoted from guideline to essay. For FAC and the few other places where such things count this would place the internal MOS on equal footing with the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' and other style guides. Editors who like the internal MOS are welcome to use it, but those who are accustomed to other established conventions are welcome to use those instead. We already have a precedent for this flexibility in the way the site handles national spellings. Elements of the internal MOS that are wiki-specific would remain at guideline level since there isn't really any replacement for them. This would cut down on many of the internal battles that have been happening at MOS, and best of all this change would facilitate expert participation in technical/academic subjects that have their own style conventions. After all, most of us care much more whether Ph.D. editors are writing articles than how they format centuries. Let's eliminate that hurdle to participation. :) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

	::::Please do. I could do with the entertainment, and (upon defeat) it would allow us to be rid of PMAnderson's agenda-based MOS edits. Bring it on. It would be nice to have one other outcome riding on the RfC: namely, that PMAnderson agree to walk away forever from the MOS (and related pages and talk pages) if the RfC is defeated (I faithfully promise never to go near a MOS-related page if the RfC mentioned above is carried.) How about it? ] 02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::::If you promised not to go near it if the RfC was ''proposed'' or ''had wide support'', that would tempt me; but since I don't expect this to pass on the first attempt, any more than one attempt sufficed to settle the Macedonia nuisance, that is not enough. ] <small>]</small> 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	* Any good publication needs a manual of style, and demoting MOSNUM to an essay does not seem at all wise to me.<p>I have an alternative proposal. Too often, editors come to MOSNUM to change things in order to lend legitimacy to their particular way of doing things in articles they’re working. However, this is often done with an insufficient understanding of the ramifications. This results in edit wars and instability on MOSNUM.<p>I propose that there be a gate keeper on MOSNUM. There were some nice ''(<b>very</b> nice)'' periods where MOSNUM was locked down due to protracted bickering over IEC prefixes and date linking. And in both cases, the admins (MZMcBride and MASEM) did fabulous jobs watching over WT:MOSNUM discussions. What about those discussions? Well, with MOSNUM locked down, suddenly there was an outbreak of peace and tranquility and awfully civil, good-faith discussion. Check out ] to see how things worked. All MZMcBride and MASEM had to do was watch over the discussions to ascertain whether what was being proposed was uncontroversial, minor, or was significant but enjoyed a wide consensus. Then they simply copied some suggested verbiage and pasted it into place denoted by the proposing editor. ] (]) 03:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	**A reasonable proposal. The gatekeeper doesn't have to decide all the issues himself; he just needs the authority to impose ''mandatory'' mediation. ] <small>]</small> 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	*<s><wakes up> did someone mention that the style anarchist Pam Anderson getting personal again at MOSNUM? ''Quoi de neuf''? ;-) It's been all peace, quiet and civility for months, and now the sniping is back. It's high time someone put a stop to his anarchist's agenda backed by stinging insults.</s> ] (]) 04:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	:* I've filed a Request for Arbitration Enforcement , with regrets, per Nathan's advice above. --] ] 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

	* Quoting PMA: {{xt\|The gatekeeper doesn't have to decide all the issues himself; he just needs the authority to impose ''mandatory'' mediation.}} That wasn’t what I was proposing. Mediation is a big, time-wasting, formal hassle. What I propose is ''precisely'' what happened twice before (and can be forensically inspected on ]); namely, MOSNUM simply stays locked and an admin gatekeeper—or pair of gatekeepers) just watches over to see if there is conflict-free changes or additions to be made. I was astonished how the past two lock-downs suddenly made all parties settle down and behave themselves. “Consensus by parties of two” and “consensus by who can make forty edits a day” is not a consensus and just makes MOSNUM unstable. Unfortunately, it seems that if there is no teacher in the room, we kindergardeners can get out of hand. '''''Way''''' too much time is being wasted under the current system, which breeds anarchy and where the only remedies are to start big formal ANIs, WQAs, and ArbComs. ] (]) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	**Well, a lot of the regulars were absent, including both of us; that doubtless helped. ;-> But as long as it has the usual tag, protection will work too. ] <small>]</small> 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
	::* Convergence of opinion: that’s good. BTW, I was indeed present throughout the period of both lock-downs and was totally unrestricted at the time as to the topics on which I could weigh in. And it was ''still'' a peaceful and harmonious place! <code><nowiki>{{insane unbelievable emoticon}}</nowiki></code> ] (]) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

	I was involved in ]-related drama? Surely you have the wrong man.... --] (]) 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
	:Looking at the archive in question, you did answer one of the "editprotected" requests. In fact, there were several such, and Masem was one of the admins answering such requests. Msgj (Martin) was another, as was Aervanath and Ckatz. Oh hang on. You are being sarcastic, aren't you? :-) ] (]) 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

	I am wondering why Mr Anderson is in so many negative situations at the moment, which appear to be part of the larger picture of his behavioural issues brought to ArbCom's attention here. Today, for example, I see that people are annoyed ] and that he against himself from his talk page. I wish he would calm down and enjoy collaborating. It's getting too much. ] ] 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Temporary injunction regarding ] ==

	''']'''

	== Obama articles: ChildofMidnight ==

	].

	I supposed that "broadly construed across all namespaces" even includes my own talk page. But I like talking with him about that topic on my own talk page. I don't think it's fair to apply the ban to my own talk page when I have no objection to him discussing that topic on my talk page. ] (]) 15:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
	:That is one of the precise problems that this clarified ban may alleviate. Grundle is an amiable good faith editor who has tried the patience of a number of others with an ongoing rapidfire series of proposals to add poorly sourced, trivial, and/or irrelevant disparaging material to the Obama article, to the point where he is currently on a community topic ban from the Obama article pages (but not talk pages). A number of us can see past the content disagreement and actually like Grundle2600 as an editor and enjoy interacting with him. When you offer a reasonable argument, Grundle2600 tends to listen and he realizes when he doesn't have consensus for something. Earlier though, ChildofMidnight would incite Grundle with exhortations that Grundle's proposals were good ones, that Grundle was the victim of "POV-pushing censors" and "vandals" who patrolled the articles, and that instead of backing down Grundle2600 should join ChildofMidnight's fight to keep the "integrity of Misplaced Pages". ChildofMidnight has incited at least half a dozen others as well, both before and after the initial case decision, some of whom were in active edit wars on the Obama pages. Here's the latest on ChildofMidnight's talk page where he calls the other parties to the case (and by extension, Arbcom) "vandals" and compares us to the Nazis. By encouraging other editors to fight the battles ChildofMidnight can no longer fight, he's trying to have his way by proxy. I don't know if Arbcom wants to allow that kind of venting on an editor's own talk pages, but if that spills over to other talk pages it's a real problem with tangible consequences in terms of other editors disrupting the Obama pages. ] (]) 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
	::I don't know if these attacks and smears are violations of Wikidemon's editing restrictions, but his campaign of stalking and harassment is very damaging to the encyclopedia. Thsi is the third time he's commented to or about me in recent weeks and nothing is done about. I can hardly be expected to ignore these vicious smears and distortions.
	::Those who aid an abet his efforts to censor and bias our content are doing a great disservice to Misplaced Pages. Our neutral point of view policy and other guidelines and editing policies are clear. The constant attempts to censor and go after editors that Wikidemon disagrees with is disgraceful and incredibly disruptive. I hope at some point those with administrative authority will put a stop to it. Grundle2600's article creation and editing work speaks for itself as does mine. Wikidemon's campaign of harassment and intimidation is an obscenity. ] (]) 19:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::You are implicitly entitled to respond to me here as a party to the case, whereas doing so elsewhere would likely violate the restriction - although you're pushing your luck with the over-the-top accusations. A query: am I one of the "censors", "vandals", etc., to whom you are referring in your talk page header? Or am I not on that list? ] (]) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::Well, CoM has always seemed to hold Baseball Bugs in the highest contempt throughout all these theatrics, followed by you, Scjessey and then probably myself. So in his very unique point of view on the Wiki-world, I'd say Bugs is Adolph, you can be Goring, and Scjessey is Bormann. I'm just a sideline antagonist, so maybe I can be Axis Sally. ] (]) 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::::''Comment removed after below caution - ] (]) 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)''
	(cleaned up stray bits of previous edits)

	*Okay everyone, time to go back to your respective corners and cut it out. The posts above border on personal attacks, and are not acceptable, from any of you. This is not the place for rubbing salt in each other's wounds or continuing the type of poor interpersonal interaction that leads to sanctions. ] (]) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
	::Risker you and the Arbcom committee have encouraged the stalking, harassment and abuse to continue. I have 30,000 edits over a wide variety of articles. It's only this small group of POV pushers that have caused problems. Their behavior is totally unacceptable and it's a disgrace that Arbcom had aided and abetted it.
	::Am I forbidden now from uttering certain words and discussing certain topics on Misplaced Pages? Based on what? Shame on you and your colleagues for creating this Orwellian environment of thuggery, intimidation and abuse. It's disgusting. ] (]) 03:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

	::Risker, are you not reading what this is actually about? Our dear ChildofMidnight has a whiny screed at the top of his talk page, a pair of Nazi images with accompanying captions that read

	{{cquote\|Like Germany under Hitler and Hermann Goering, seen here at Nuremberg in 1928 (before their rise to power), Misplaced Pages is patrolled by "brownshirted" stormtroopers in 2009 censoring those they disagree with from speaking"}}

	and

	{{cquote\|The alliance of work and people as displayed in a 1934 Nazi exhibition, an environment not unlike that on Misplaced Pages where content contributors who don't toe the line are subject to grotesque abuse}}

	which anyone with at least a shred of familiarity with this case will know precisely to who (or is is ''to whom'', I always forget) these refer to. Reacting to being called a fucking (pardon my francais) Nazi is not rubbing salt or "continuing the type of poor interpersonal interaction", that is a completely absurd assessment of the situation. Thankfully there are with the temerity to call a spade a spade. ] (]) 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

			__TOC__
	::(copied from my talk page)
	::I realize that as an arbitrator you are entitled to police the arbitration pages. However, I think this comment was hasty. Asking those objecting to being compared to Nazis to stop complaining about it is probably not the swiftest thing. The Nazi accusations ''must'' be removed one way or another - it's untenable that anybody on Misplaced Pages would use their talk page to call their perceived Misplaced Pages adversaries Nazis. There must surely be policies on this, but beyond Misplaced Pages policy that is a basic matter of decency, for people not to call each other Nazis. All of the trouble here is coming from a single editor who is acting out, with no supporters or defenders other than themselves, and it would be helpful to actually do something about it rather than waste everyone's time trying to warn all sides. Arbcom is the last stop for resolving behavioral matters and, like it or not, the parties to an Arbcom case have room to comment and make their case there as it involves them. Some comments are clearly more germane and actionable than others. Objections to the Nazi label are relevant. Nevertheless I have removed my comment from that forum. If not me, plenty of others share my disquiet. ] (]) 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
	:::All of you: this is not an Arbcom case page, or the place to make Arbcom requests. This is a noticeboard, and it is not the place to continue disputes. That goes for everyone posting here. If anyone feels that one of the editors posting here has violated the terms of their sanctions, the place to bring this up is ].If anyone feels that another full Arbcom case is required, then the place to post is at the ] page. As to the posts on ChildofMidnight's talk page, just remember ]. CoM is not sanctioned for bringing a different perspective, CoM is sanctioned for expressing that perspective in such a way as to denigrate others and cast aspersions. That, incidentally, applies to all sides of this issue. This project's behavioural standard is that one treats other editors with dignity and respect, whether or not one agrees with others. Now, this should be taken as a final warning to all of you—the discussion happening here in this thread belongs somewhere else, if it belongs onwiki at all. Either take it to the right place, or don't take it, but it will not continue here. ] (]) 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
	::::I believe we're listening, Risker, we just disagree. This is a matter that could be dealt with swiftly by any administrator, and probably should be if Arbcom is not ready to act. Why encourage the filing of a new case? ] (]) 03:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:10, 25 December 2024

Shortcuts

What this page is for:: This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:: To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.