Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:07, 20 April 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Wow

There really is a lot of stuff to go through given what the case was allegedly based on. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

I think this case is absurd

I think this arbcom case is absurd. I have noticed for some reason that many of the editors in the top editors list are being targetted on at a time for their work on Misplaced Pages. I do not think this is a coincidence but I fail to understand why a group of users would want to target the editors doing the most to build and maintain the pedia. Rich did some minor edits, so what. Every little edit helps the pedia a little bit at a time. I find it surprising that Rich would continue to endure this constant harrassment and I am surprised that the community has continued to allow the constant hounding of Rich by users like CBM, FRAM and others. Its the same 3 or 4 editors almost always that find the "problems" and most of these editors do very few edits to actually improve article content. Sure they run a couple bots and do some admin actions and those are important. But that is not what we are here for. WE are here to build an enyclopedia, these other actions are just nice to haves and in many cases just distract us from the bigger goal. If the intent is to limit editors to a certain number of edits then fine but otherwise someone with some common sense should drop this case. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of arbitration cases is to determine whether the detriments that the subject (or subjects) of an arbitration case have caused outweigh the good contributions they have left. It's up to the arbs to determine what is appropriate and what is not by weighing the evidence provided. Welcome to Misplaced Pages, perhaps, you can create an account and log-in =) Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 22:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I can not speak for CBM and "others", but I do believe I do and have done my share of "actually improving article content", e.g. by creating over a 1000 articles (inlcuding lots of DYK and a few GA). On the other hand, most problematic edits by Rich (apart from the very buggy article creation script he used) do very little to improve article content, and are largely cosmetic, e.g. changing Encyclopedia to Encyclopaedia, or U.S. to US. This doesn't mean that, when done correctly, they aren't useful, but they are not improving the actual content one bit.

And I'm sad to say that no one has informed me of the conspiracy to get rid of the editors in the "top editors list", I certainly am not a part of it. IF you have any evidence of such a conspiracy, please raise it at the appropriate boards immediately. Otherwise, please stop sprouting unfounded accusations. Fram (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I got my username fixed so I am going to try and use this rather than the IP. Just to calrify I agree that Rich has done some bad edits and has employed some bad judgement on some tasks. The majority of this case though seems to revolve around minor edits though which to me is a waste of time arguing about. If the MOS says that something should X instead of Y and someone like Rich does it, especially with a bot that can be ignored, then there is no harm done and the edits are just complying with the MOS. As I mentioned before many times I see articles improve incrementally from these types of edits and in the end it is helpful and improves the articles. As for the conspiracy, it is a perception that I have seen that several of the editors in the top 20 have either been run out, myself included or are under scrutiny. I find this especially puzzling when they are doing the same kinds of edits as others who are not mentioned at all. This gives the impression that some users are being targetted. As I have mentioned before FRAM, you CBM and others sepnd entirely too much time bickering about minor edits. Their minor and not worth the effort and time that you are wasting to argue about them. Especially when not all of us think they don't benefit the pedia. IF actual problems occur such as breaking things, creating erroneous categories or various other things I have seen then I am on board that we need to fix that quick but these minor edits are just a waste of a lot of editors valuable time. Thats just my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

None of my complaints, evidence, ... in this case are about minor edits as such, all are about actual errors, edits that break things or otherwise contain way too much errors. I don't get why he still changes things to fit his preference, ignoring the guidelines that clearly state that such changes shouldn't be made at all, but I have only brought him to AN, ANI or ArbCom for more serious business, not for this. Fram (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You see this is where your failure to understand and work together leads to problems. For example the case where you said "7 errors out of 39" - and I pointed out the 5 of what you had said were errors were actually correct, but, while accepting that you still insisted that it was 7 errors out of 39. That plus the fact that you instruct other editors on what to do. It's only later when you start saying things that are certainly false - and you should know are false that things get really bad. If you were to cultivate being friendly and polite instead of peremptory and dictatorial you might find you get better results. For myself I have had enough of you, a message you don't seem to understand. Perhaps if we were face to face you would pick up on my body language? Or perhaps not. Rich Farmbrough, 02:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC).