Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:46, 22 November 2013

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

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

WT:AC Archives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Nominations for the 2013 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2013 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday, 10 November at 00:01 (UTC) until Tuesday, 19 November at 23:59 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. 64.40.54.211 (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Only 9 Candidates

There is just over 1 day left for candidates in the December 2013 Arbcom election to Nominate themselves. There are currently only 9 candidates running for 9 open seats, and while there are often last minute nominations, I wanted to remind everyone that time is running out to nominate yourself. Nominations close at 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday the 19th. Monty₈₄₅ 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disturbing, yes. Maybe Arbcom elections are going the same way as RfA, or perhaps for the same reasons, users are not enclined to run, or that the community is simply loosing confidence in Arbcom as a system. Whatever, maybe this is a sign that a fundamental reform of Arbcom or its election system is required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me. Just a few hours later, we are now at 16 candidates. I would not be surprised to see even more in the coming 18 or so hours before nominations close. Now, different people will have different evaluations of those candidates, but I urge everyone to carefully consider each one, with an eye to building an effective Arbitration Committee, not one that mirrors one's own personal perspective. Will they do the heavy slogging of reviewing unblock/unban requests? Will they work hard to develop consensus on procedures, and try to find a middle ground that most can live with? Do they give the impression they're "me-first" or single-issue candidates? How do they feel about community participation in cases, Checkuser/Oversighter/AUSC candidacies, policy/procedure development? What's their history, and have they shown growth and improvement over the course of years? Everyone has a few weeks to think about these things. There's a good, effective Arbcom out there: we as a community just have to pick it out. Risker (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Snipers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness, things were so bad that I was afraid I was going to have to run again :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish you had ;)  Roger Davies 23:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You really hate me that much, don't you :P :). In all seriousness, I'm glad we have a very large amount of candidates and I'll try to ask at least one question to each candidate... SirFozzie (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We have too many candidates. I've been asking a question of each of them, and there are too many. Just kidding!!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While I have no comment on the number of candidates, I will say that there are far too many questions, and I wish that questions from individual community members was held at no more than 2, as had been the case in a past election or two. Nobody except election junkies will read the responses now (Floquenbeam is absolutely correct about that), and only election junkies will make the voter guides that trash the candidates who think it is irresponsible to expect the community to read so many responses. Does not bode well. I may have to write my own election guide to counteract. :D Risker (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually think in a lot of cases, it's good to get detailed answers. In some cases, I do agree that it seems to be "gotcha" questioning (back and forth arguing or debating). And Risker, if you write a counteracting guide, I'll be forced to write a counter-counteracting guide... :D (and yes, I'm sure someone will then write a counter-counter-counteracting guide.. this is Misplaced Pages. Recursion isn't one of the five pillars, but sometimes you could've fooled me) SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RECURSION ought to be a policy, but see my post at 00:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) for why it's not. alanyst 00:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has written a candidate guide in years past while asking an absurd number of questions, I have to say that it is much easier to write a guide this year when I can just focus on past personal interactions and my own digging. NW (Talk) 06:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole candidate guide system should be scrapped, and and that user questions should be severly limited in number. Otherwise, what's the point in having a secret ballot? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the thrust of your comment is. If you mean "we obviously know W is going to vote X on candidate Y based on guide Z", knowing the opinions of a dozen editors doesn't really seem to matter much in the context of hundreds of editors voting. If we were concerned about truly being secretive we might as well anonymize all questions to the candidates as well, as (especially this go-around) there are a lot more of the kinds of questions which are essentially boiling down to "I don't like this decision, are you on my side or theirs." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how candidates respond to this many questions gives us some idea, at least, of how they will respond to the workload they will face if elected. If you want a committee which tackles difficult cases with reasonable timelyness, observe how they undertake these questions. Jonathunder (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I answered almost all of them, but refused to answer any questions from one specific user who posed a question that I find to be entirely inappropriate. It is annoying to put the effort into crafting coherent answers to so many questions when you know that almost nobody is even going to bother reading it. Then again, I think there is validity to the point that that is a lot like actually being an arb. You spend weeks or even months going over a topic, having conversations with the involved parties, consulting with the other arbs, and in the end all most people ever see is the two or three paragraph announcement of the decision. And then the yelling starts.

I also think the voter guide system is a bit out of control. Some of them seem well thought out and based on a serious, objective evaluation of the candidates, but at least as many are just rants against certain candidates the writer personally does not like. I suppose it wouldn't be nice to name names, but one of them explained nearly all of their opposes with informative remarks like "who would want to vote for this person?" That isn't a voter guide, it's just cheap shots and trash talking. However, I don't see how anything could be done about that short of just abolishing the entire concept, or at least not making it an "official" thing that is displayed on election pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In my view, a carefully considered explanation of why you didn't answer a particular question counts as an answer. Thank you for your work. Jonathunder (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• The 'thrust' of my comment was to precipitate comment from others - in which it was successful.The huge number of questions make a lot of reading for anyone seriously interested in casting an objective vote after having reviewed all of the candidates; meaning that at the end of the day, some voters will vote from the hip, choosing among well known or less known candidates based on what they already know, for better or for worse - all elections for various offices are inevitably partly un/popularity contests. On the candidate guides, I share share the concerns expressed by Beeblebrox. That said, I belive the Arbcom election system to be otherwise one of the best solutions we have.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a move?

Hi, so, over four years ago the ArbCom said that certain conventions were to be in place for article titles including the word "Macedonia"... for the time being (relevant case here). It has been over four years.

I think the Republic of Macedonia is probably the thing most of our readers want when they search for Macedonia, and I think it's what most of our editors expect when they link to Macedonia; therefore, I think it's a primary topic and should be moved there. (You might disagree with my analysis, and that's fine! But such a debate should only really take place within a requested move discussion.) My question is--can I go ahead and propose a move? It's been four years and the reasoning for the ArbCom case in the first place has died down some, I think. Your thoughts are appreciated. (Again, please do not debate whether it is indeed the primary topic here--just whether or not you think I am permitted to propose the request.) Red Slash 03:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Red Slash. I suggest that you make a request for an amendment of the previous case, asking if the community can return to contemplating the move decision or otherwise revisiting the provisions of the case. Risker (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion?

I know that occasionally ArbCom pages (and others) are subject to courtesy blanking. Today, however, while looking at some ancient Misplaced Pages history (2006 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Robert I, which itself is not blanked), I found that it's talkpae and all subpages (proposed decisions, workshop, evidence) have been subject to something called "courtesy deletion" by User:SlimVirgin (as of August 11, 2007). Nothing on the page explains why such a bizarre courtesy action (not supported by our policies, as far as I can tell) has taken place. As such, I'd like to ask ArbCom (and SlimVirgin) for clarification: is there any reason those pages should be deleted (again, the main RfArb/Robert I is not even blanked...)? If not, I'd like to ask that those pages are undeleted (no objection to regular courtesy blanking, if any good reason for it can be presented.). IFF there are reason for those pages to be deleted, they should be stated on the RfArb/Robert I, and the policy on courtesy blanking and revision deletion (present at Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy) should be modified to include this concept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit of background, when I talked to SV, the action was taken to try to give the subject a chance to make a clean break from Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, the main page had to be restored because as it turned out, the subject had comeback to Misplaced Pages using sockpuppet accounts, so the main arb page had to be undeleted to provide background. Speaking only as an administrator, I have no problem with having the rest of the pages undeleted. SirFozzie (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely that if the same circumstances happened today the pages would have been courtesy-blanked rather than outright deleted. I'm hesitant to suggest the pages be undeleted outright, however, if there isn't evidence it's necessary for some reason. 2007 arb activities were before I believe every current arb, including Brad, and I can't speak to the merits of the action with any authority. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another note. Back in 2007, arbitration pages were indexed by search engines, and it would be reasonable to assume that these pages would have made up the top google hits for the editor. Deletion was, at the time, the only way to mitigate that. Today, no-index is attached to all arbcom pages and is generally respected by most search engine bots, so the harm is mitigated. I agree with David Fuchs that unless there is a current issue involving the editor behind the account, no purpose is served by undeleting and then courtesy blanking. Risker (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have much to add to this. As SirFozzie says, it was a case of someone wanting a clean break. I'll leave it for others to decide whether to undelete, but I agree that it makes sense to leave it unless something relevant has changed. SlimVirgin 04:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press