Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 23 February 2014

This seems odd

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. Herostratus (talk) 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).

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. Salvio 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. Herostratus (talk) 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. Resolute 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 Acas, and arbcom clerks' roles can be very different from the dictionary definition of a clerk or even the role of a Justices' clerk. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request template

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 User:Callanecc/sandbox2 will replace Template:Sanction enforcement request header, which when substed will look like this (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, pinging regular AE admins (sorry if I missed anyone) (Sandstein—HJ Mitchell—Georgewilliamherbert—EdJohnston—Guerillero). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me.  Sandstein  09:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. EdJohnston (talk) 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. Awkward42 (talk) 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with this change --Guerillero | My Talk 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." {{userlinks}} are for ratting out vandals at WP:AIV, not use among polite company. NE Ent 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 WP:AIV uses {{vandal}} and {{IPvandal}}. {{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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's an objection to using {{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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur, it should be used for neither. NE Ent 03:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the WP:AE contain {{userlinks}} for the submitter of a request?

• No Reports should be evaluated on their merits, not the wikistatus of the filer. NE Ent 03:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, {{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). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Though I wouldn't really complain if {{userlinks}} were instead used for neither. Only a couple clicks' difference. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 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.  Sandstein  07:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following as a statement in the Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett case

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

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. 188.29.34.199 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 188.29.34.199 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The request has been declined and removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment