| Revision as of 21:20, 20 October 2013 editLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators759,915 edits →Archives: Comment← 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 | ||
| (999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| 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__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == |
== Motion 2b == | ||
| Could there be a word or two distinguishing WT:RFAR archives (2004-2009) from Various archives (2004-2011) and Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009-)? It's especially unclear what "Various archives" refers to and it's unclear where to look for an older request. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 18:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Another way of saying various archives is random archives search at own peril, they are mainly collections of archives from various places including during the transition from ''Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration'' to ''Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests''. What sort of older request are you after? The ] has links to accepted cases, motions and declined case requests. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: That is surprising, ''']''', I would think since ARBCOM has clerks that the Archives would be nice and tidy. That sounds like a good weekend project, like cleaning out the garage. ;-) <br> | |||
| :: When did that transition occur? I'm trying to get a sense of how ARBCOM has changed over time and ] doesn't provide much detail. I don't have a specific case I'm looking for information on. Are the only archived records regarding ARBCOM, records of cases, requests and elections? I assume email list archives are private. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Another question, I don't see the Noticeboard archives. How can I find them and how far back in time do they go? Thanks! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Finally, I promise, will ] be expanded to include 2012? Right now, there are only stats for the 2008-2011 period. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure when the transition occurred, but ], ] and "The position of clerk was {{Diff|2=prev|3=36654554|4=created}} by the Committee in January 2006" (from ]) may be of assistance. I believe the noticeboard is a reasonably new thing. | |||
| ], may be able to help some more, he's been around for a while. ] won't be extended, but you can get the same information from the ] and subpages. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 22:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : {{reply|Liz}} Oh dear, you have asked a lot of questions! No matter – I enjoy dredging the institutional memory :-). | |||
| :* Committee clerks implement our decisions and administer the process. They are not like the committee's secretaries, and keeping everything neat and tidy is not part of their job. The archives are actually often updated by community members, not the clerks. | |||
| :* The transition from the ''Requests for arbitration'' to the ''Arbitration/Requests'' process occurred ]. | |||
| :* Records are kept of arbitration case requests, requests for clarification, requests for amendment, arbitrator-initiated motions, arbitration cases (and their workshops, evidence and PD pages, and all talk pages), announcements, discussion of announcements, and Audit Subcommittee personnel changes and public reports. | |||
| :* The noticeboard started in 2008–2009 and its archives are linked at the top of ]. | |||
| :* ''Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011'' and its predecessors was created by a very complicated ] script that took hours to run and required frequent maintenance. Beginning in 2010, it was decided that it was not an effective use of volunteer time to keep producing those statistics. I did, however, maintain a different set of statistics in my userspace for a short time: see ]. | |||
| :* Mailing list archives are private. | |||
| : However, I think the very best way of getting a sense of how the committee has changed over the years is to look through our case decisions (at ]), starting in 2004 and 2005 and reading a couple of cases from each year. It's fascinating how the process itself as changed, as well as what sort of disputes came in front of the committee then compared to now. I hope this helps, ] ]] 23:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Wow! Thanks, ''']''' and ], for all of this information. I found this one particularly stunning: | |||
| <blockquote>"Records are kept of arbitration case requests, requests for clarification, requests for amendment, arbitrator-initiated motions, arbitration cases (and their workshops, evidence and PD pages, and all talk pages), announcements, discussion of announcements, and Audit Subcommittee personnel changes and public reports." </blockquote> | |||
| :: Yikes! That sounds like a whole lot more pages that are present in the boxes at the top right of this page. It would be nice to have one index page (or, I guess a Category page) that listed all the archives in some complete, standardized way. But, to be honest, I don't imagine that you really get that many inquiries like mine. | |||
| :: I have gone back (well, as far back as 2006) and looked at some of the more involved cases (Scientology, TM, Eastern Europe, cases involving specific Editors/Admins, and, of course, Ebionites2) but I probably need to look at some more "ordinary" cases that don't involve a dozen involved parties. I'm guessing that prior to 2004, disputes were more or less handled privately? | |||
| :: Since July, I've been diving into Misplaced Pages (policies, disputes, projects and organization) and I think the most consistent element I've found (well, besides the Five Pillars) is the constant complaint by some Editors that conditions have deteriorated since they first joined, specifically that there was a higher quality of Admins and Arbitrators. But I've seen comments saying basically the same thing in 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011 and now. It makes me wonder if this ''Golden Era'' actually ever existed. | |||
| :: That's why I asked ] the other day if she could put together some thoughts and reflections about ARBCOM as she is leaving because so much of your work is done behind closed doors. People just see the final decisions on a few cases, they aren't aware of ways that ARBCOM has tried to reform itself or become more balanced, efficient or fair. Editors see authoritative words coming from you admonishing Editors (or not) but, to put it bluntly, they don't see you sweat, they aren't aware of activities that fill your days. Of course, the details of most of this can't be posted publicly but I think there should be some record of how ARBCOM has evolved and changed that doesn't involve reading between the lines. And I don't see it as navel-gazing but as preserving institutional history. There is going to be a big turnover of Arbitrators this year and I think it would be helpful for them to have some idea of what changes have been tried, what the common obstacles are and what projects you wished you'd have had time to get to. | |||
| :: Just some thoughts, for what it's worth. ;-) <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{reply|Liz}} "they aren't aware of activities that fill your days": I did write some thoughts up last year that may go some way to answering that question. See ]. And Risker also wrote something pertinent ]. However, you are correct that there is an enormous amount of behind-the-scenes work to this role; for example, our to-do list contained 21 items up until a week ago! ] ]] 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That's what I'm looking for! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. | |||
| :::: You know, all of the calls for transparency aren't just coming from people who want to see dirty laundry or to put you on the spot. I think, frankly, the average Editor doesn't have a clue what you all do (beyond the case files they see) and I think ARBCOM would get less grief if users knew how hard you work. Where there is a paucity of information, people just project on to you whatever ambivalent feelings they have about authority. I've no doubt that there are some who have created entirely fictitious conceptions of how ARBCOM operates based on the information they do get to see and their own suspicions. Transparency not only educates those on the outside, but it also helps them see you as well-intentioned, hard-working users. It's a win-win situation! ;-) <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 00:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], as you probably saw, I commented at Risker's talk page as well. I've only just noticed this conversation here. I think what you been provided with above is enough to give you an idea of some of what goes on. It has already been pointed out above, but ] was compiled by me (it is worth looking at the numbers there), and AGK has pointed out several pages (I wasn't aware of his ] - that is interesting). Reading over some of the election questions asked by former arbitrators may also give you some insight as well. In that vein, you might be interested in the (slightly tongue-in-cheek) questions I posed ]. One more link: , a set of interview responses posted in June 2013 on the WMF blogging site. ] (]) 13:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Thanks, ]. I knew I wasn't the first person to ask these questions but, frankly, there are ''many'' pages in Misplaced Pages that one will never stumble on to without having a direct link. Hence my interest in categorization which is often the only source of navigation to pages like these. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to provide me with links and I'd like to encourage ARBCOM to collect statements and articles that have been written about it (sort of an ARBCOM oral history project). I'll start a page but, frankly, if the information in located on a subpage of mine, no one will ever know its there. But if ARBCOM doesn't do this on your own, maybe when I'm complete, you could move the page to Arbitration space. Thanks, again. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I also stumbled on to ] so it might behoove me to check the subpages of former Arbitrators for more statements and assessments. By the way, this has been such an informative and productive conversation. It's nice to be able to ask a question on a Talk Page that isn't adversarial. It's probably because it's the Archive Talk Page and it doesn't receive a lot of traffic. | |||
| :::::::: Thanks again, <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:20, 20 October 2013 (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) | |||
| == Request for Arbitration for unresolved dispute : Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati == | |||
| Respected Sir i never with drew from the dispute resolution filed by me. I only mentioned i have no stamina left to bear insults and degrading of the subject. I demand justice Sir. Further instead of giving justice the people involved in the dispute had started Vendetta. All sections of talk page has gone to archives. Further they have started raising new issues against the subject after that dispute, which they them self accepted initially. I invite you to visit the article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati for same The dispute filed by me was "Talk page of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati", Talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article, NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso, Myself, Subject." I beg you and feel sorry if any language of mine was considered as with drawing of dispute. Regards] (]) 07:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You said two days ago you were giving and that you would never again log in to Misplaced Pages. Anybody with common sense would conclude that the request you filed could be closed as withdrawn. Now it looks like your "last message" was theatrics. ] (]) 16:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Unfortunately, several people were editing with that account and the involved parties are all now indefinitely blocked. He had an urgent message to get to ARBCOM. It was almost impossible to understand though and an Admin has deleted it, twice, from his Talk Page. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| == Tumbleman WP:AR displeasure == | |||
| I just wanted to record my displeasure at the recent ] WP:AR. It seems that only admin ] was at least willing to wait before making a more circumspect decision. The rest of the process seemed not too dissimilar from Monty Python's ''Life of Brian'' "" sketch. I am disgusted at this : | |||
| #It concluded in less than 24 hours, whatever happened to due process? | |||
| #] has not even contributed, whatever happened to a right to reply, or providing his side of the story? | |||
| #Not one editing diff was provided showing inappropriate editing of any kind. | |||
| #No diff showing an initial warning from an involved administrator, as required by ]. | |||
| #Blocked per ] when his contributions to this page are demonstrably constructive. | |||
| #Two WP:AR administrators who should know better, in addition to editors, showing clear incivility with personal attacks, such as questioning his competence (]). | |||
| #Of the nine editors who responsed to the WP:AR request, five where clearly ''not'' in favour of sanctions against Tumbleman. That's a majority of 55% against. Whatever happened to ]? | |||
| I am dismayed at this flawed process, ashamed that Misplaced Pages allows this to happen, and not in the least bit surprised. --] (]) 17:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Responding to only a few of these points: there isn't a default timeframe which constitutes "due process" at ]. The rate-limiting step is usually the speed at which admins review the cases and comment. Some are resolved in 24 hours or less, and some stay open for weeks. In this case, five experienced admins reviewed the case—that ''is'' due process at ]. In fact, it's far better than most AE cases, which are resolved with input from only one or two admins.<p>Tumbleman provided responses on his own talkpage, which is a common approach in requests dealing with blocked editors. As Iantresman notes, I suggested we table the request until Tumbleman was unblocked, but I think the consensus of the 4 other admins—to action the case more swiftly—was reasonable. The point about the lack of a warning is potentially valid, but frankly strikes me as ]. There was sufficient cause to block Tumbleman indefinitely for disruptive editing, regardless of the existence of discretionary sanctions, and I don't think it serves any purpose to insist on yet another warning when he's already had a number of general warnings about his conduct.<p>To the final point, it should be obvious that ] cases are not handled according to a head-count of commenting editors. They are resolved by an uninvolved admin, or by consensus among uninvolved admins, and editorial comments are advisory in nature. In this case, there was a clear consensus among reviewing admins to block Tumbleman indefinitely, and that's what happened. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Some Editors really know how to work the system. I'll just say that I'm surprised that so many Admins came down so harshly upon an Editor who was participating in a content discussion. It makes me wonder who is next. It is really chilling. | |||
| :: And if I'm accused of not AGF I'll just say I'm assuming as much good faith towards others as they extended to Tumbleman. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've already been threatened with WP:AE apparently for discussing the wrong academic sources, and pushing a POV in an article I haven't actually edited for 18 months. --] (]) 18:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Forget weak consensus on the indef block, there was no consensus. I'm worried on what that could mean for others taken to AE. It's certainly a matter that needs more looking into. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 18:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, let's be clear. There was an obvious consensus among uninvolved admins for an indefinite block. That's how AE works. I will repeat this as many times as necessary: ] is not ]. Reports at AE are not disposed on the basis of head-counting editors' comments, so it makes no sense to refer to a consensus (or lack thereof) among commentators on the request. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see comparisons to the Community sanction noticeboard (CSN, that was closed because it was flawed. See ]. Now that I think of it, I see no difference. --] (]) 20:27, 17 October 2013 (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) | |||
| Further to my original comments above, I now see: | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| *8. Per my Item #4 (above), no diff seems to have been provided showing an initial warning concerning, possibly because I can't find any such warning, neither on ], nor on ], per ] | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| *9. ] has been blocked indefinitely. This seems contrary to Discretionary Sanctions, which states that "sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length".] | |||
| --] (]) 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you have an issue with the process please submit a request at ] where the Committee can take a look and do something about it. The discussion between a few users on this page really isn't going to achieve much. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 13:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any admin can block a user indefinitely. Certainly a consensus of 5 experienced admins is sufficient to place an indefinite block. This block was not placed as an ArbCom enforcement action, but rather as a regular, everyday indefinite block of the sort that are routinely used to deal with disruptive editing. If we're going to focus on technicalities, then that's the technical reason why the points about a specific AE warning and the length of the block are irrelevant. Tumbleman can appeal the block using ], which have been put in place specifically to provide recourse for editors in these situations. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the issue I have with that is | |||
| :::#This case was brought as a Discretionary Sanction | |||
| :::#It was discussed as a DS | |||
| :::#Even the closing admin thought it was a DS when they closed it. | |||
| :::#Editors and admin may have discussed it differently if they knew it was in a wider context | |||
| :::#I thought the issues that may warrant regular blocking are discussed at WP:ANI | |||
| :::#At the very least "it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review", per ]. | |||
| :::--] (]) 19:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, if it is a regular sanction then it is not just limited to ivory tower review, but can be overturned by regular editors at AN. Should you believe there is a problem with the block then that would be the place to raise your concerns.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:07, 18 October 2013 (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)