| Revision as of 21:17, 22 December 2012 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,398 editsm Signing comment by Dilazak1 - "→Your response to Dilazak Arbitration request: new section"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,352 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:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == RE: Request concerning Cla68 == | |||
| Future Perfect at Sunrise just closed an RfE without obtaining ] first (although they claim that they did). Is this allowed? If it's allowed, is it a good idea? Do the opinions of the community not matter? I seem to recall one of the AE admins soliciting more input for feedback of uninvolved non-admins, but when that feedback is offered, it's summarily rejected. What's the point of uninvolved non-admins commenting on these RfEs if it's just going to be ignored? Are members of the community just wasting their time when they review these issues? Because if I'm just wasting my time, I'd like to know that. ] (]) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Notice that he closed it before I could come in and give a rebuttal to some of the points raised by other admins in the thread, after he blocked me to prevent me from giving my side? Notice that he moved to close it quickly when other admins were proposing sanctions against the filing party? I'm not surprised at all. ] (]) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :You are free to appeal any enforcement action to a ] or to the Committee itself. Otherwise, I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to discuss this issue. ] (]) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can we please handle this situation in a fashion that doesn't give any further encouragement to the banned editors who are laughing their heads off at all of us already? I pose this as a request in the hope that we don't need to do anything else. ] (]) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Lord Roem: I was at AE and clicked on Talk. I don't know why AE doesn't have its own dedicated talk page, but this is the talk page for AE. ] (]) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Newyorkbrad: No. I want to know why I'm wasting my time. ] (]) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Newyorkbrad, it appears to be that your attitude towards this is, "We can't do anything to stop this BATTLEGROUND feud, because if we do anything to the established editor, then the banned editor will think that he won." With that attitude, you are contributing to the continuation of this situation. It's got to be stopped, now. I will be filing an ArbCom case request about Future Perfect at Sunrise, probably later today. When I do, please step outside of that (well-intentioned) logic box you've gotten yourself into, and take some action to stop this. I'm not the one who is furthering it, it's stuff like what Future Perfect did today and has been doing for months which is doing it. ] (]) 22:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "No consensus"? When I first outlined my proposed closure , at 13:01 UTC, it came as a summary of two sets of proposals, each of which had previously been agreed to by several admins. After that, one other admin (ErrantX) concurred he regarded it as an acceptable solution . Then I made my formally worded proposal , at 17:25 UTC, inviting further comments. Then three other admins endorsed it (John Carter, Timotheus C and Seraphimblade). That's when I finally closed the thread. I dare say you'll rarely get AE closures that have a more clearly confirmed consensus than this one. ] ] 22:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] is not a vote. It's a discussion. You closed the RfE a mere ''6 minutes'' after I last posted. Do you honestly think that ''everyone'' had a chance to look at the issues I raised in only ''6 minutes''? Please, give me a break. ] (]) 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For me, at least, it became clear that AE is not a venue able to address the broader issues (as my attempt to do so showed). That's fine, I accept the reasoning behind that. There was little point extending the thread further, and I am a fan of quick resolutions when I stops le dramaz. If no one else has done so I will file an Arbcom case in January (when the elections are sorted, filing now would be unfair) in an attempt to have this all cleared up. There is a plethora of evidence and recent comments from arbcom indicate that they too are tired of the various participants in this dispute. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 09:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I won't pretend to be familiar with the issues involved here, but wouldn't ArbCom have the greatest chance at resolving them before the end of the year? At the end of the year many of the current arbitrators will be replaced with new arbitrators who haven't previously served on the committee, and who won't have the same degree of familiarity with what's going on. In this situation, I would think having some background about the history is essential for knowing how to resolve it. --] (]) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The knee-jerk idea of a new R&I case is a non-starter, since at present, apart from one loose end after the review, there are no unresolved issues. Fortunately there will be some continuity in the arbitration committee. Experienced arbitrators like Newyorkbrad (assuming he is re-elected) and Roger Davies will be able to help in distinguishing between trolling by Echigo mole (an irrelevance which has been allowed to grow out of all proportion) and the real issues of R&I (proxy-editing for and facilitating of site-banned users). Unless editors familarize themselves with the original case and its immediate aftermath, their input is of very limited value. ] (]) 20:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not envisioning an R&I case, which largely seems laid to rest, but one examining extant behavioural issues (battleground behaviour, gaming etc.) arising from that and other issues. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Anything remotely connected to R&I or Echigo mole would almost certainly be refused due to "R&I fatigue syndrome". ] (]) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::There's something I've been wanting to say, and this is as good a place as any to say it...is why is there so much effort lately to frame this and other alleged editor misconduct issues as "personal disputes" that should be resolved by interaction bans? You know, if there really is a problem with an editor's (an I mean this in general, not directed at anyone in particular) continued conduct, then how is an interaction ban supposed to resolve it? An interaction ban simply silences the editor(s) who have decided that something needs to be done about the problem and are trying to push WP's reluctant administration to take care of it. I understand why WP's administration is hesitant to take on a problem, especially when it involves established editors, because Misplaced Pages's current system ensures that it will be frustrating, time-consuming, and adversarial. However, and I'm talking to you Misplaced Pages admins, including arbs, by becoming an admin you have signed up to deal with editor conduct issues. Imposing interaction bans when there is evidence of misconduct by one or more of the parties does not solve anything. It simply kicks the can down the road. You do this, you are failing in your responsibility. | |||
| ::::::::I'm a content editor, so I don't normally hang around ANI and AN looking for problems to solve. I pick my issues carefully that I get involved in. But, when I get involved, it's because I sincerely believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed. When you immediately label me as having a "personal conflict" and impose an interaction ban when I'm trying to make my case, you are basically telling me, and other interested parties to "F-off." That's not the way this should be working. I appreciate ErrantX volunteering to take this one on, but it shouldn't be necessary to have to work this way. ] (]) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::There has been plenty of opportunity in the last couple of months for anyone to prepare a statement backed by some real diffs ("real" meaning that independent editors can see for themselves that a significant problem exists). As no one has posted anything substantial, the matter should be dropped. If ''new'' cases arise that cause someone concern, they can find a way to start a suitable discussion (perhaps initiated by email). ] (]) 02:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I have posted some evidence with diffs . ] (]) 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Are you planning on responding? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that as an admin, you are required to justify your actions. First, you blocked an editor against consensus and then you closed an RfE without consensus. Perfection is not expected from admins, but that's 2 mistakes in a row. You need to explain why the community should entrust you with the tools. ] (]) 11:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Moved from talk == | |||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| ;Response to Roger Davies | |||
| Roger Davies, I have no problem answering your questions, but I have several of my own first: | |||
| #When you recused from the global warming case, why did you continue to discuss the case with the committee off-wiki, as illustrated by the leaked emails? | |||
| #If you recused from that case because of our past history with wp:MIHLIST, what has changed since then that allowed you to participate in this case? Did you notice that within hours of you voting in the last motion, Kirill Lokshin publicly recused? You don't think that that recusal was trying to prompt some integrity from you? | |||
| #Wasn't the reason you last refused evidence about Mathsci because it didn't fit into the review that you were conducting? If so, then why would it be rejected now? Is there something going on here that you're not telling me? | |||
| #Has there ever been another Misplaced Pages editor who outed other editors on ''four'' separate occasions, including one with a homo-hate edit summary, that wasn't blocked? If so, could you point it out to the rest of us? I'm asking out of considerations of fairness and consistency, which I assume you have some awareness of.<p> | |||
| If you answer my questions I will answer yours, but I'm not holding my breath. ] (]) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:31, 14 December 2012 (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) | |||
| :Replies: | |||
| :# I didn't recuse in the Climate change case. In fact, Shell Kinney and I took over as drafters about half way through, re-organised the proposed decision page, and did many of the FOFs and Remedies. As I felt I might be conflicted because of our Milhist association, I did recuse as far as you were concerned. Accordingly, I neither drafted nor voted on the FOF/Remedy about you. | |||
| :# What has changed is that I have come to realise that my concerns about conflicted feelings were misplaced. Kirill can do as he chooses. I doubt if he was sending a coded message. | |||
| :# Without going through it all line by line, I believe all the "outing" material you've disclosed here has already been submitted to the entire committee by email as private evidence during the last case. It would be rejected now because it has already been reviewed, no action was taken, and we don't keep ]. | |||
| :# There's only one unambiguous example of outing in the examples you provide, and that's the 2006 one. As far as I'm aware, it has never been custom and practice to block for actions which are four years old. | |||
| : ] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>It was 6 years ago and the person signed their RL name on ]. ] (]) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::<small>Really? I've just been through all their contributions (including deleted ones) and can't find it. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Organizational 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? == | |||
| Am I the only one who finds it odd that we put multiple cases on a single page? I've spent ten minutes trying to track down a diff, partly because there is so much activity on ]. It would also make archiving cleaner, as I have found it difficult to find past cases, and think it would be easier if there were one case to a page. I accept that one might not want a separate page for every little motion, but a request for a full case? Even tiny MfD's have their own page.--]] 18:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. It would be much better to keep them separate in my opinion. ] (]) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd advise you to use ] rather than the full requests page which may make the edit conflicts/tracking down a diff a bit easier. To help with finding past cases (if you haven't already seen it), we have ]. ] (]) 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Page organisation is terrible - someone thought they were "clever" to merge a bunch of talk pages, why on earth requests don't have separate pages is a mystery. Possibly that the harder things are to find the less light can be shone in dark places? Surely not! ''] ]'', <small>18:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Comment on the SchuminWeb case == | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| The SchuminWeb case illustrates the affect of the stygma that Arbcom now has on user cases. If the case gets accepted, its basically an automatic guilty verdict because they wouldn't take the case unless they thought there was something there requiring action. The result of that is the user just leaves. Because to spend the next several weeks depating about your editing with every editor who you have ever come across, just ends up being a waste of time in the end. Its happened at least a couple times before and now again with Schuminweb. Its starting to be a conditioned response by the users. Hopefully the new shakeup will change that perception with the community. ] (]) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I know that you make this point frequently. I think it is overstated to an extent; there are lots of cases in which we have decided that no findings are warranted against one or more of the parties, or that even if there is a finding, no sanction or only a mild sanction is warranted. It depends on the individual case. | |||
| :You are probably right that when we accept a "one-user" case (i.e. a case focused primarily on the user conduct or administrator actions of a single editor), it is typically because the statements on the request for arbitration give us some cause for concern about that editor's behavior. However, I'm afraid I don't know what can be done about this. ''Of course'' we are only going to accept an arbitration case about an editor if there is good reason to believe there may be something problematic about that editor's behavior. What is the alternative—that we also open arbitration cases against people who don't seem to have done anything wrong? | |||
| :This isn't meant insincerely or sarcastically—I honestly don't see what it is you are suggesting that the arbitrators do differently. ] (]) 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that there isn't much that can be done with regard to choosing to take the case. I think the changes lie in how the case is carried out and the result. The problem I see is that the primary result of a case regarding users is, desysop, ban (either sitewide or topic) or both, and that these are nearly always carried out at the end of a case regardless of the arguments presented by the user. The problem with these cases are, they are long and time consuming so typically the only ones that partipate are the accused, the accuser(s) and the Arbcom. This means that the user, essentially has to defend themselves and their actions from all the members of Arbcom and their questons and from 3-10 accusers. Then after all that, the result is desysop, ban or both, in 98% of the cases. So why go through it at all, knowing what lies at the end of that road? I trully do not know how to fix this problem other than to reengineer the Arbcom process to treat cases against individual editors differently than standard topic cases rather than the one size fits all process that currently exists. ] (]) 18:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the reply. The problem is that I don't think your estimate that 98% of cases result in desysops or bans or both is really accurate. If you take a look at the cases decided in the past couple of years (the list is at ]), I think you'll discover many cases where there were no sanctions, or only admonitions or warnings or mild restrictions, or where sanctions were voted against only a couple but not all of the named parties. So I think you may be overstating the situation just a bit. ] (]) 18:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the link. I have seen that before and have looked at or participated in several of those. I agree that admonishments and lesser sanctions have been doled out but those are typically related to topic cases or to third parties involved. Not at the primary defendant (for lack of a better word). One possibile way to stem some of this is to setup a pool of editors, outside Arbcom, who would be willing to act as a sort of Peer review (a Jury if you will), then they vote in secret, like the voting for the Arbcom elections, so that their vote doesn't sway the views of the other members. Of course the Arbcom members would still get their vote and say but would be more like the Judges and the executioner rather than Judge, Jury AND executioner. Of course this is contingent on having enough editors willing to participate outside those already on Arbcom but its one idea anyway. This would take some of the heat of of Arbcom as being the monsters, it would give other editors a chance to familiarize themselves with the cases and the process, it would, I think, also add a level of legitimacy to what currently looks from the outside as a rather one sided and jaded process. ] (]) 18:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| == Your response to Dilazak Arbitration request == | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Newyorkbrad & Roger Davies , Thanks for your attention. I will abide by the rules of Misplaced Pages as I fully understand the great service it is providing to the world. I am ,however, waiting for some worthy Administrator to Arbitrate the matter. Regards Dilazak1 21:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
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)