Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 24 December 2012

Organizational question

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. 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.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be much better to keep them separate in my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise you to use Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Lord Roem (talk) 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! Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

Comment on the SchuminWeb case

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. Kumioko (talk) 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 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. Kumioko (talk) 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 WP:RFAR/C), 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 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. Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your response to Dilazak Arbitration request

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs)

Thanks - Wiki Administrators

Silk Tork has attended to our request and 'Cleaned up the Page' as well as placed a reasonable Tag on 'Talk page' conveying appropriate message for contributors.
I actually represent a core team of four colleagues who are struggling to revive lost identity of our tribe that was once very famous and mighty but unfortunately going into oblivion now. In third world countries like ours 'Pakistan' and particularly in tribal cultures like ours 'The Afghans', there is a serious problem of Capacity. We can't tolerate others (Not every one is like that certainly) and would adopt all possible means to defame, degrade and disfigure others identities while showing a smiling face. A renowned forum like Misplaced Pages is the best place to try all such mischievous tools. Needless to say that we are eternally indebted to you for keeping the standards of impartiality, neutrality, logic, proof and sense flying high without distinction as to race, sex, or religion and above racism and vandalism.
We are entirely satisfied and grateful.
Long live Misplaced Pages. Dilazak1 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)