| Revision as of 19:18, 25 February 2014 editAlanscottwalker (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers74,632 edits Admonishments← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,333 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 == | ||
| Without commenting on the merits of the arbitration request "Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett", I note that at current there are six responses, three by clerks and the by arbs, and they are ''all'' recusals. What's up with that? What's up with ''clerks'' recusing? I thought clerks were mostly technicians. Why would you need to recuse if you're just basically looking stuff up and verifying data and technical stuff like that? | |||
| I'd understand if it's something like "This person is my landlord" or "I'm married to his sister" but how many sisters do the involved parties have??? | |||
| Floquenbeam was like "Recuse, as I've promised to do in all things related to Eric Corbett". Could we get more info here? Is he your cousin or what? AXE is "Recuse I feel strongly about this matter"? What... is this a bad thing? Should we be warned to only bring up matters that nobody cares much about? NativeForeigner is like "I've interacted with this editor on another matter, so I'm done here..." Beeblebrox is at least succinct: "recuse". | |||
| This is not showing a lot of bold leadership... can we not get a straight decline or accept? IIRC in the real world recusal is usually used for instances of ''potential for significant conflict of interest''. I'm not saying that any of these of these are in play, but "I really like/don't like one of the parties" or "I had dinner with one of the parties last August" and so forth are ''not'' grounds for recusal, and neither is "Would rather not deal with this" or "Would prefer not to be recorded as voting to either accept or decline". Arbitrators are expected to brush stuff like that aside. It just strikes me odd. ] (]) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Speaking for myself, I generally recuse when I think that I cannot be neutral or may not appear to be neutral wrt the issue at hand. For instance, if I feel strongly about an editor, I need to recuse because, otherwise, I might let my bias influence the way I vote on the final decision (for a concrete example: a couple of years ago, before being elected, I participated in an RFC concerning the conduct of an editor, who would then be sanctioned by ArbCom; now, whenever this editor appeals his restrictions, I recuse, so as not to give the impression I am letting my bias influence ArbCom's decision). <p>Clerks broadly follow the same recusal standards, because they don't do only "technical stuff": clerks have the power to remove or modify any submission which violates Misplaced Pages's behavioural standards and may also ban editors from case pages. For that reason, they need to be neutral and appear to be neutral as well. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand, but with all due respect I don't really buy it. It depends on why you feel strongly about the editor, I guess. If it's something like (say) "I cannot be neutral because I really like this editor, because I think this editor is a really good Wikipedian, and I believe that it's wrong for me to take that into account, but I can't help myself" (or the converse, "Hate her, she's a tendentious editor...." etc.) then... are you really not able to work past that? | |||
| ::(I'm not even sure ''why'' you wouldn't want to take stuff like "She's an excellent editor" or "she's a destructive troll" into account; I would/. But that's how the ArbCom rolls I guess, and there're reasons for that, so OK.) | |||
| ::But if wanted to... it's ''not that hard''. If I can do it you can. I'm perfectly ''capable'' of thinking like "Well, the plaintiff is a destructive troll and blackguard and I loathe her and the defendant is a huge asset to the Misplaced Pages and I just really admire him, but the plaintiff is correct on the technical merits of this particular incident, so I'll vote to banish the defendant." I believe that any person who ''wants'' to think like this ''can'' think like this if they try. | |||
| ::Not to be able to do this is... not excellent, in my opinion. We all should strive to be excellent I think. | |||
| ::As to the second part ("may not appear to be neutral"), that's a totally nother thing and Its a valid point but complicated so I'll let it lie. ] (]) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suspect most of the clerks (and many of the arbs) could work past individual bias and still do their jobs. Many of us are capable of doing the same in our editing. But it is better for all if the perception is avoided. Especially given anything related to an arb case is almost always a pre-existing drama pit. You just open yourself up for attacks by the side that didn't 'win' the case. ]] 19:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed. Just like notability on wikipedia is rather different from dictionary definitions of notability, arbitrators and the arbitration process on Misplaced Pages are not much like what goes on at ], and arbcom clerks' roles can be very different from the dictionary definition of a clerk or even the role of a ]. --] (]) 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ''(belatedly)'' - just noting now (as I have had too many RL headaches to devote to non-fun things on wikipedia lately), if someone had accused me of gravedancing or violating BLP policy I'd be incensed...and much much more so than if someone had called me a cunt or any other Anglo-Saxon cuss word. I sorta think an official admonishment was warranted, though I note there has been some contrition. Anyway, just saying. ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:21, 23 February 2014 (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) | |||
| == Arbitration enforcement request template == | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to change the AE request template so that it gives userlinks for the user submitting the request as it's generally useful to check the history of that user. So ] will replace ], which when substed will look like ] (original on top, User:Callanecc/sandbox2 at the bottom). Before I make the change can I just get a nod from at least a few regular AE admins since it'll change how it looks and works, {{Pinggroup|pinging regular AE admins (sorry if I missed anyone)|Sandstein|HJ Mitchell|Georgewilliamherbert|EdJohnston|Guerillero}}. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:51, 20 February 2014 (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) | |||
| :Looks like a good idea to me. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Support. ] (]) 14:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not a regular AE admin by any stretch of the imagination, but it looks good to me too. ] (]) ] (])] 14:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The requester's signature would normally contain a link to their user and talk pages, but I certainly don't object to this. ] | ] 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see any issues with this change --] | ] 00:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Having recently filed two requests (both found to be valid), the process was: Sanction -> link. Violation -> diff. Sign, Save Page. Notice on user talk, copy diff, back to AE: Notice -> diff. Done. What does the number of contributions I've made or my block log or any of ''that'' have to do with the sanction, and what does the same information on the editor I'm reporting have to do with anything? | |||
| The top of WP:AE says: "Most editors under Arbitration Committee sanctions are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still assume good faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive." {{tl|userlinks}} are for ratting out vandals at ], not use among polite company. <small>]</small> 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've made the change. | |||
| :This change won't make any difference to the user submitting the request. Nitpicking but ] uses {{tl|vandal}} and {{tl|IPvandal}}. {{tl|Userlinks}} is a simple and easy way to check the history of the user submitting the report. Whenever any user submits an enforcement request I always check their talk page history and block log mainly for AE sanctions and personal attacks or harassment blocks or warnings. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If there's an objection to using {{tl|Userlinks}} for the filer, then it should be applied just as much for the reported user, since they, too, are expected not to be mere vandals. That is to say, either the template should use userlinks for both or neither. ] ] 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Concur, it should be used for neither. <small>]</small> 03:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|policy|rfcid=4FF5944}} | |||
| Should the ] contain {{tl|userlinks}} for the submitter of a request? | |||
| *'''No''' Reports should be evaluated on their merits, not the wikistatus of the filer. <small>]</small> 03:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', {{tl|userlinks}} in no way prejudices the outcome; it only allows an easy way for admins to check if the filer has clean hands (something they would do anyway). ] ] 03:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Though I wouldn't really complain if {{tl|userlinks}} were instead used for neither. Only a couple clicks' difference. ] ] 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' this is about saving time not about prejudicing the outcome as I said above. Admins are going to check anyway (and definitely have to check for the reported user) so not including them just makes it harder and take more time to check the things we have to check before we can do anything else. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Sure, it is normally necessary to check both parties' conduct, and this helps to do so quickly. Frankly, this doesn't need a RfC in my view, it's not as if this is policy or anything of importance. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}} | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| Please add the following as a statement in the Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett 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) | |||
| So this is what we have from the arbs: | |||
| :''Commentary'': | |||
| :'''Salvio''': Kevin made a personal attack on Eric and, when this was pointed out to him, he not only refused to apologise but actually doubled down on the attacks. is unacceptably arrogant. | |||
| :'''Seraphimblade ''': I agree with Salvio | |||
| :'''T. Canens''': I agree with Salvio | |||
| :''Voting'': | |||
| :'''Salvio''': decline | |||
| :'''T. Canens''': decline | |||
| == Egad == | |||
| Do you not see a disconnect between words and actions here, guys? You are all wrong when you say that his behaviour is unacceptable. It is perfectly acceptable. You have just voted to accept it. In doing so, you remind every admin, yet again, that it is acceptable to make personal attacks on editors. You reaffirm that in the highly improbable event that they somehow find themselves brought to account for such an attack, ArbCom will do nothing about it. ] (]) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The request has been declined and removed. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Admonishment?=== | |||
| Has the commitee ever studied or discussed the effects or effectiveness of its admonishments, including do they work and whether such is made manifest by the admonsihment's degree (strongly, not strongly, grudingly after a few tries, etc.)? ] (]) 19:18, 25 February 2014 (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)