| Revision as of 15:15, 16 January 2022 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,557,350 editsm Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.Tag: Reverted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:21, 16 January 2022 edit undoBarkeep49 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators40,826 edits Restored revision 286989495 by Kirill Lokshin (talk): Restoring redirectTags: Twinkle New redirect Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{Talk page of redirect}} | |||
| == Slim/Lar talk page == | |||
| If this is as much a "no edit or else" zone as this suggests. Then can I ask that you consider protecting it. All arbs and clerks are admins, and whilst other possible posters are too, the protection should make them think if they miss the notice. It may reduce the chances of anyone getting blocked over this.--] (]) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :All clerks are not admins, but most are and all arbs are. I will mull over protecting it.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was an excellent point; at the very least the big fat red warning will prevent someone from editing that has not noticed the big warning up top. I've protected (indef for now). — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Workshop== | |||
| Email from Seddon, posted here with his permission: | |||
| After looking some of the open arbitration cases, I noticed that one thing i felt was one discouragement against someone from outside a case from assisting was the difficulty in trying to find where to place new proposals. I know where to look because I have taken part in several cases and watch many others but I felt that people who were not regular watchers of arb cases may be intimidated by the vast amount of information on workshop pages and attempting to find where they should place thier proposals. My suggestion, if it possible, would be to move the workshop to a transluded style, similar to the layout of AFD and other arena's. This would enable the easy creation of proposals in a similar way afds etc and may help in the increase of afd participation. Comment on this idea would be grateful. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span> | |||
| :I was intimidated by the arb process even shortly after I became a clerk. It's daunting no matter what your level of experience. I think the best thing we could do with the Workshop is get rid of the current "by user" method we went to early this year and go back to the way it used to be, with all the proposed findings together, principles together, remedies together, etc. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would tend to agree. Sadly, while the objective (reducing the number of point-counterpoint dispute in the comment sections of proposals) was laudable, the effective result is a duplication of both effort and of the number of such threads. Personally, I'd call the attempt "failed" and return to the imperfect, but "less worse" old way. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't mind either, personally, but can understand the confusion for less experienced participants at the current structure relative to the old one. ] (]) 05:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'll point the arbs to this thread. One questions is to whether to make the change with the next case or with the seating of the new arbs at the end of the year. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 09:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Sadly, I never liked this way of doing things, because it makes it hard to group things to consider them together. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===AGK's proposal.=== | |||
| I think a good compromise would be the following system: | |||
| <pre> | |||
| ==Proposals for final decision== | |||
| ===Proposed principles=== | |||
| ====Principle name (AGK)==== | |||
| {principle content} | |||
| ====Principle name (Rlevse)==== | |||
| {principle content} | |||
| ===Proposed findings of fact=== | |||
| ====Finding name (Daniel)==== | |||
| {finding content} | |||
| ====Finding name (Coren)==== | |||
| {finding content} | |||
| ===Proposed remedies=== | |||
| ====Remedy name (Seddon)==== | |||
| {remedy content} | |||
| ====Remedy name (Other user)==== | |||
| {remedy content} | |||
| </pre> | |||
| This combines the approach of grouping all proposals by a single editor in one section, and the approach of combining all identical types of proposals in one section (eg., all proposed principles together). This also continues to honour the primary justification presented by Kirill when he first directed the Clerks to make this change (on behalf of the entire ArbCom, if I recall correctly)—that one should be able to review the /Workshop page and immediately identify proposals made by certain users. (By extension, this would, I presume, make giving less weight to proposals from certain users easier, should this be desirable for whatever reason.) | |||
| Thoughts on this possible compromise? ] 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :LOVE IT!<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Keeping each type separate does make it harder for people to make coherent, whole-of-case proposals (ie, a complete suite of principles, findings of fact and remedies all together). My feeling is that it's quite frequent for people to do so, and it's something that ought to be encouraged further (it forces you to have perspective). On a related note, one thing I think would probably be useful would be some method for grouping proposals that are simply variations on, or rewordings of, existing proposals. Quite often people are proposing similar things, and having each such proposal in a separate section can rapidly make the page unwieldy. --] (]) 22:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This ties in to an idea I have discussed with people over recent months about the active clerking of proposals at workshop pages. Whether this is done by current abcom clerks or perhaps by some "junior clerks" do you think it is possible? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a delicate matter because it presumes some amount of synthesis and interpretation — there would be little point without — and having clerks ''alter'' editors' contributions is controversial at best (even if I ''do'' think that more "active" refactoring and summarizing as was originally proposed was a good idea). — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<small>(] w/ Coren.)</small> For my part I do not believe requesting that the entire Clerk corps actively patrol the /Workshop (and related) pages in the spirit of "pro-active Clerking" is feasible; the average volume of traffic through such pages today makes it nigh on impossible, unless the Clerk team is substantially increased in size (which is probably not desirable, on a number of levels; I can offer further thoughts on this if desired). Any editor, however, is welcome to make improvements to the page, insofar as it does not disrupt the ability of other editors to utilise the /Workshop page and/or it does not, well, become a bit of a pest. It's a huge job, however... One Clerk for tens of editors (each of whom may make several—often double-digit—numbers of proposals at once) does not really make for a fair workload. ] 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I completely agree with all views presented that both you and Coren have given. I think that whatever course of action taken will need serious consideration. Prehaps this is something that should be taken step by step, rather than throwing it at the community in one go. That way if there are issues, changes will be small rather than a major process being repeating changed in its working. I think that structure of the page is the first thing that could be dealt with. Given the point that thebainer raised, I will point out that the solution AGK suggested would at least allow people to see if there are repitions more easily. At this point in time, the page is too fragmented to be able to attempt to do this without serious amounts of time. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Is AGK's method going to be applied? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Strawpoll=== | |||
| A: Keep as is, "by user" | |||
| B: Go back to the old way | |||
| C: Adopt AGK's way | |||
| #C., but note that the Committee's assent is what is needed here more than anything. Have they been pinged regarding this proposal? ] 22:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #:::Yes, I notified them and all clerks.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #C., I like AGK's way too. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #C.; per my own reasoning above. :-) — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I shall make arrangements over the next few days to have the Committee evaluate this proposal, and either reject or approve to the proposal as they wish. ] 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Update'''. Email sent to ArbCom-l a moment ago. ] 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| At this point maybe this should be left alone until the new arbitrators are selected and can express their preference. ] (]) 18:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That seems reasonable. We'll put this on hold until late December. ] 18:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Update'''<br />This proposal is now being discussed on ArbCom-l, and is being guided by ]. Hopefully a consensus will emerge on this within the next week.<br />] 15:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The point of having workshop pages is to permit all interested persons to have potential input into decisions. And, potentially, provide a forum for arbitrators to conduct debate in the open for all to see. As a practical matter, not all workshop suggestions and comment are read even by a fully engaged arbitrator. It is helpful if the identity of the person making the suggestion is plainly set forth. So I favor AGK's suggestion. Workshops do produce drama and it has been suggested that we would be better off without them; however, I think that, in the long run, open and candid debate is for the best. ] ] 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Fred's sentiment. ] 16:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #I'd say C first, B close second. It's much easier, coming from an arb-to-be, to look at it from that light. ] 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==How does one get a restriction lifted?== | |||
| Hello clerks.... | |||
| In 2007, I was subjected to a restriction by Arbcom. How does one move beyond such things? Hopefully, I am not restricted for life.] (]) 23:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You need to appeal to arbcom. Send an email to arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org with the background of your restriction and the reasons you feel it should be lifted. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, will get around to it soon. Thanks.] (]) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Suggestion for reorganization of ]== | |||
| At ], I've intended to improve the usability of the requests for arbitration page, which I think is getting out of hand because of the huge numbers of large comments and even discussions-in-all-but-name by users who are uninvolved or only peripherally involved. --] 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:21, 16 January 2022
Redirect to: