Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vassyana (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 24 January 2009 (→Elonka and Arbitration Enforcement: reply, I've redacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

cs interwiki request

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

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Misplaced Pages (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the ] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the perpetual NOINDEXing problem of RFAR

Per a discussion on Newyorkbrad's talk page located here, he asked me to post this suggestion and said he thought it was a good idea. To ensure that all the RFAR related pages are excluded from search engines with the {{NOINDEX}} function requires us to constantly keep adding the tags all over the place.

A simpler solution would be to simply add the NOINDEX tag to Template:ArbComOpenTasks and then make that a mandatory addition on every single RFAR page--Evidence, Statement, top-level, bottom level, Workshop, Proposed Decision, talk, etc.

It gives two benefits: 1. Massively increased functionality and visibility in general for RFAR business by using the navigation toolbar (maybe an alternate, co, and 2. Naturally scrubs everything RFAR-related from the search engines in a few weeks, which is a decision the Arbitration Committee can make without any approval required.

An even simpler solution would be to just include Template:ArbComNav which I just made on all the pages and talk pages, that features all three needed templates. :)

Any objections to someone tearing through this with a very basic AWB sweep? rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The "NOINDEX" could also be added to the template pages for the evidence page, workshop, and proposed decision pages (although that wouldn't pick up their talkpages). Or we could implement the overdue NOINDEX'ing of most of Misplaced Pages space, where RfAr pages of course are included. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is good for now. If we NOINDEX all of Misplaced Pages space, we should instead use the norobots.txt. Misplaced Pages space should be amenable to that kind of sweeping exclusion. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

According to MediaWiki:Robots.txt (and the live version), this should already be effectively done -- any page that starts Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/ should be excluded. Is this not the case? ] 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mbisanz found that some RFAR pages were still showing up on indexes (since robots.txt be ignored by accident or on purpose by search engines), but to my knowledge no pages tagged with the NOINDEX function oddly had fallen through the technical cracks. My idea was to simply double-cover these especially sensitive pages for NOINDEXing, but also to get the extra navigation and benefit of handy RFAR links on each page and sub page. rootology (C)(T) 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Any search engine that uses metatags will obey robots.txt. The problems were 1) a bug in the software allowed variant forms to be indexed, noted on WR and now fixed, and 2) that many ArbCom pages have been redirected from locations not covered by the robots exclusions. Putting the tag into all of the pages will ensure that it's noindexed no matter how someone makes a redirect. Cool Hand Luke 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That was part of why I suggested it this way. That way, even if we somehow miss a mainspace redirect, it doesn't matter. Nothing would slip by if we rammed a NOINDEX command via templated across every last page. rootology (C)(T) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Best solution here. Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The regular templates or my unified one that I added NOINDEX to, and that calls the others? I'd offer to AWB it myself as well but I don't think I'd have time to sit down and do it till probably the weekend after this one. But anyone could do it... they're super trivial AWB or bot edits. rootology (C)(T) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Give me five minutes to fill out a BRFA and grab another BAGer and I'll do it. I just want clearance from a arb/clerk as to what they want where. MBisanz 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Once there is AC guidance on it, the only thing beyond which template(s) to use would be to add calls for the same ones to the templates the clerks use to build the pages (trivial/one-time edit) and then anyone can just plop the given one onto every new talk/archive page as they're made later. rootology (C)(T) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the value of including the big pink templates on all cases, especially old ones...why not just manually transclude to the top, as it will be an identical amount of effort and that way we don't have to modify the substantive content of closed cases? Daniel (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion for the templates was just to add a common navigation template to each case, and adding that or a NOINDEX template is all the same for the amount of work involved. Generate list of pages, AWB or bot it, done. It wouldn't really alter the content per se of anything in any way, it's just adding a neutral template. And it would allow for convenient top-level views on any RFAR case pages of what's going on overall, giving all the active stuff more visibility in general (with the added bonus of the NOINDEXing). It's not a content change, just a technical one. rootology (C)(T) 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So... has this died? :) rootology (C)(T) 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm coming late to the party, but how exactly would this navigation template work?--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me try something better. Is there a way to make a shorter, wider, and less intrusive navigation template for all cases?--Tznkai (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Tznkai and I figured out a solution that will benefit everyone long term, hopefully. Template:ArbComNav is now stripped down to just calling __NOINDEX as a function, with the inclusion of the previous navigation templates commented out. The templates while very useful to have all over are just too darn wide right now--they're set for 45% width by default and on some monitors it looks frankly bad. Tznkai said the templates are hopefully getting redone soon to be proper, and we can then always just tweak ArbComNav to call the newer, shinier version on the various. This lets us get the immediate benefit that some Arbs are in favor of--truly purging all of the RFAR content definitively from about all SEO and search engines, and the navigation benefits can be just sorted later. We'd still only need a handful of minor edits to the Arbcom new page templates and 1-2 trivial bot or AWB sweeps. rootology (C)(T) 17:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, this will allow us to add functionality quickly in the future, that simultaneously solves a pressing problem now. The options from here are out are creating and maintaining a separate navigation template, or reworking the main templates.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Please note that the Arbitration Committee have announced that they have established a new central noticeboard, which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for more details.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

tallies

Currently tallies are a slash separated list inside the section heading. I assume that they are in the section header so that they appear in the TOC, however they change often, which means the automatic section links in the history usually dont work.

In order to make it easier for everyone to understand what the tally refers to, maybe we could use a template instead. e.g.

{{rfar tally | accept = 3 | decline = 1 | recuse = 2 | comment = 1 }}

I also think it would be better to place this tally underneath the section header, but I can see the value of having it in the TOC. John Vandenberg 06:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I frequently have to scroll to align the tallys with the positions; I cannot possibly be the only one. KillerChihuahua 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, it is confusing not to actually say what the numbers mean. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. Further, I think a review of the section headings used, generally, might be productive. I often try clicking on the -> for a section heading in my watchlist only to find that it takes me to the first of several with the same name, or whatever... perhaps some scheme where all heads carry unique prefixes might be helpful. (case numbers? shudder. But you get the idea) ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something like that would be good too - would also be helpful in watchlist to know which case was being commented or voted on. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world there wouldn't be enough cases for it to matter - but alas we live in this one. I've taken to referring to each case by shorthand as part of my edit summaries when I comment in cases -especially within clerknotes if I remember. The arb and the clerk sections could easily be retitled by a clerk as Casename:Clerk notes Casename:Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (whatever we do with the arb tallies). As far as statements go though, if the same user is commenting in too many cases to easily find out where they are, that may not be a problem we can fix with formatting.--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bishzilla admonished but unabashed

I've gathered that I'm expected to be pleased and grateful at being spared an RFAR about my block of FT2. Sorry, that's not happening. When a friend of mine ended up "admonished" a while back, he had to first to endure an elaborate "trial"—an RFAR case—which wasted an incredible amount of time for many people. So I certainly have sympathy for the attempt to institute an arbitration procedure "light," for the simple cases. We all have an interest in keeping down the arbcom's workload, as well as an interest in not wasting our own time on jumping through bureaucratic hoops. But to have our actions and deeply felt convictions simply voted on, in a "motion", by a body that allows nothing in the way of opportunity or space for the putative criminal to account for their own motives, or to defend themselves—that's ridiculous. It turns out that the committee has no wish to hear from me on the subject in any form (or were those "statements" the opportunity and the space? Why wasn't I told?). And yet the committee presumes to opine about my motives. This system already needs reform, because the procedure of holding up a silenced—or talkpage-banished—and supposedly abashed criminal to the loose-cannon commentary of individual arbiters is a bad one. Look at how it panned out here. I'm thinking particularly of the comments of Coren, who tells me, cavalierly, why I blocked FT2. (I was "furthering a political dispute", I "knew the block was improper.") Needless to say, his "why" doesn't look much like my own account, necessarily brief, on ANI. For me, Coren's version brings up a ludicrous picture of recalcitrant pupil being hauled before stern headmaster. Or, wait, am I merely seeing a presumptuous young guy lecturing me about the contents of my head?

I have no respect for the procedure as it works at present. On the other hand, speaking more personally, I do appreciate the tact and good sense of those arbitrators who merely signed the motion by way of support, rather than taking the opportunity of spreading themselves on the subject of my motives. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

I am largely sympathetic to the view that arbitration should not ever be about motives. It should be about actions only. Arbcom should be saying "blocking a user in these circumstances is unacceptable" and leave motives out of it. We can look at logs and see what people have done, we can't read minds. However, I think the orbita dicta of individual arbs is less important than the unanimously agreed motion. The motion (whether one agrees with it or not) seems clear.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although I was admonished just now for using it, the term "theory of mind" comes to mind (it's a good term despite being used here a lot by a rather less than helpful individual). We can never know what motivates, what someone was thinking... at least not for certain. Judge outcomes, not intents. The closest we can come is to suggest that a reasonable person should have known how something was going to turn out, or that an action was ill advised, rash, whatever. To ascribe motive is to go too far, and leads us into not assuming good faith. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Everywhere one goes these days there is Scott Mac (Doc) with a ready opinion, and advice on how to amend all or faults, how I would love to be so perfect. Before this case closes, however, let us not forget that same committee, now admonishing Bishonen, had been dithering for weeks and weeks and weeks, and were it not for Bishonen courageously and wisely bringing this whole sorry matter to head would still be dithering and the project, and all those involved, suffering as a result. Which I suppose means admonishing is only to be expected. A thank you would probably stick in the throat. SO I will say it - Thank you Bishonen for getting the job sorted and concluded. Giano (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The "same" committee has not "been dithering for weeks and weeks and weeks", this incarnation of the committee was 13 days old when Bishonen blocked and posted on ANI, with 10 of 17 then members brand new to the committee. The committee has been doing plenty, I compiled a list somewhere of just the things I've seen - a list curiously similar to fulfilling a community-wide mandate for reform. Bishonen did in fact force the issue, but barring an unfortunate repeat in history, we'll never know for sure if it would've been resolved better without her impatient intervention two weeks into the new year (as I believe it would have been) worse, or not at all (as you seem to believe.) --Tznkai (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai, I am getting rather tired of this "new commitee" talk they are not composed of newbies, they have all been (hopefully) at least twice round the block. The situation could be pro-longed no further, it was sorted and it was dealt with - give thanks! Giano (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Which may be true - but doesn't get close to addressing my points, nor make up for the inaccuracies in what you said. There is reasonable disagreement of opinion on whether Bishonen's intervention helped or hurt the situation - but the facts remain that at least ten of the people you accuse of "dithering" for "weeks and weeks and weeks" weren't in the position to do anything about it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have gone on much longer as User:Thatcher was being very persistent, and SlimVirgin who eventually filed an RfC, after a couple of days of which FT resigned. That's why RfC, not bullying, is part of the dispute resolution process.:) Sticky Parkin 23:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• While an admonishment may be the correct, rational action, it is politically unwise. Prosecutors do not prosecute every violation they witness. The admonishment will go down in history as a political action designed to scold Bishonen for opposing the power of ArbCom. How dare you block one of our members. As such, the admonishment will reduce trust in ArbCom, and thus harm Misplaced Pages. A smarter move would be to remain silent. If Bishonen needs scolding, it would be far better to come from the community. Jehochman 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the admonishment this way.. it means arbcom is saying "We're officially supposed to say this is bad, but we're not actually doing anything about it." Friday (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, Jehochman? If that theory held any water wouldn't they have done something to me too? I took the entire Committee to RFC last summer, chewed out five of them at my blog a couple weeks ago, and called them out on Jimbo's user talk the other day. And if they're looking for ways to be subtler there are two other open cases where I'm a named party. AGF is policy, but if that isn't good enough go ahead and watchlist the proposed decisions to see what happens. No need for more tension than we already have. Durova 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm going to get it - Durova, the name us ringing bells, Durova , Durova Durova, Oh hell no, surely not, it can't be - not Durova who was once in the forces. I don't beleieve it, you were the girl who walked a million miles in moccasins. Well you have grown. Giano (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano, this comment right here is outright taunting and it needs to stop. Your comment displaying your personal distaste with Durova doesn't even have the facade of relevance here.--Tznkai (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it is funny. And Durova's "look at me" post rather asks for it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If everyone who has ever written a "look at me and all I have done" post was insulted, admonished, or otherwise publicly castigated, there are quite a few names here who deserve it as much - if not more. Wouldn't you agree?--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Perhaps we need a policy to insist on a certain threshold number of said posts before we take action?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. "We" do not need to take action. You, Giano, and Durova need to, in that order.--Tznkai (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note Bishonen

I fail to understand your reasoning behind using the account Bishonen (talk · contribs) to discuss a case dealing with administrative actions done by Bishzilla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -- FayssalF - 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it is known both are the same user, how does it matter? "The reasoning behind" could simply be that she happened to be logged in as Bishonen at the time. I can't see the issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the use of the Bishonen account versus the Bishzilla accounts strikes me as a digression. I think I actually do understand the reasoning, but IMHO it doesn't matter much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"how does it matter?" It is rather a procedural issue and got nothing to do with digression. We deal with accounts and not people. Not because I believe it is true but imagine Bishonen actions resulting in a blockable violation while arguing for the case of Bishzilla (i.e. personal atacks, legal threats). What would you do? -- FayssalF - 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you block either account, the other must respect the block. It really makes no difference. Jehochman 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, FaysalF, I think you'll find that we address conduct issues towards people, not accounts--for obvious reasons. --TS 22:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminished?

Your response, Bishonen, is on the point, but I was astonished at FloNight's idea that "unwise" use of tools is now going to demote people. ArbCom is wise, now? They can spot wisdom in others? They can specify degrees of wisdom? They have, according to her, initiated a new regime of deciding which of us are administrator wise, user wise, and unwise? This is pretty creepy.

¶Argument: you lacked "wisdom" because you should have known that blocking FT2 was controversial.

¶Answer: Blocking is not controversial, of any user. Blanking AfD is controversial, but I do not recall that Snowspinner lost his administrator's status over it. "Controversy" is a function of response. Why did a block generate action from ArbCom when other things did not? It is those who respond who are being unwise, if they had thought there was no reason to proceed until a block occurred.

Secondly, our actions are dependent upon violations of policies, not popularity. Neither you nor I have argued that, for the obvious example, Giano should not be blocked because it will be "drama." We have argued that he should not because the grounds cited do not have consensus. An administrator should block if there is a violation of policy that is recalcitrant, and then should seek out consensus from the community. You did not block FT2 for being a verbose person, for lying, etc. You blocked him for violating policy, stated the argument on AN/I, and sought consensus that that policy had been violated by that user. It was not a fifth block in a row for the same alleged violation that the community had decided was no violation (as is the case, yet again, with people wanting to say that unilateral interpretations of "civility" justify blocks).

¶Conclusion: Bishzilla is being admonished for ArbCom's reaction to her action. It is horribly misapplied self-flagellation. Geogre (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocks should be used in order to prevent someone editing - where stopping them editing is for the good of the project. If one uses the block button in the certain knowledge that someone will unblock, then one misuses the block button. There are only two scenarios that justify a block: 1) there is a consensus to block 2) the block is so obvious that a consensus can be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Blocking a user because you believe he's violated policy x, where you don't believe consensus will support you is invalid. It is the same reason that I believe anyone blocking Giano for incivility is also being disruptive. They may believe he's violated some policy that merits it, but it will be evident that consensus will not support that. Now, perhaps in this case Bishonen's actions arguably forced an issue that needed forced. But really, what type of message do we send out if we say that's OK? If you think an issue needs brought to a head, and you think a user has violated policy, block??? That would leave Giano blocked twice a day by a certain subset of admins. I'm no process wonk, but I think we need to make dispute resolution processes actually work. I can understand that frustration sometimes tempts us all to try to short-circuit seemingly unending delays, but most of us don't want others to do the same of "their issues".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder then, that Giano's civility parole (and therefore the restriction on blocking Giano for incivility to require a majority of the Arbitration Committee) expires quite soon. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is really relevant. Arbcom can block any user by motion anytime. And as I understand it, there never was any instruction that admins couldn't block Giano just like any user, it was simply that the civility parole blocks were restricted. But none of that changes the fact that it is disruptive to block someone if you know the block will lack consensus, and unless Giano takes to putting penis pictures on multiple articles, I can't see there ever being a consensus in his case. That's just how it is.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt the truth of any of that; Giano's knack of pitching his comments so that they come just on the line between blockable incivility/personal attacks and acceptable is a long-established trait which has had the effect of making him unblockable. However there is another duty which I see the arbitration committee as having, which is to help editors and administrators avoid unnecessary trouble. There are several administrators who would happily have blocked Giano for incivility over the last few months but did not because they were not granted permission to. They would all have been the focus of intense WP:DRAMA if they had gone ahead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also true.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a brainwave, what if I just had admin buttons, than I could just quietly unblock myself and no-one would notice, that would save multiple others the trouble and avoid all conflict? I could also block fools on sight, and that would save conflict too. The other solution is for me to be on the Arbcom, then my wise advice could be taken and save multiple troubles months in advance. Giano (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, I like that one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Giano-here's an even better one, just stay out of trouble. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All of that talk above is entirely off the topic and extraneous. Bishonen blocked a user for the first time for violating policy and continuing to exercise editing rights without compliance. Blocking is, alas, not merely because continuing edits are continuing offense -- that is a block for disruption, and it's valid -- but it is also when someone refuses to comply the basic principles and requirements of usage of Misplaced Pages. For example, if someone were user:Microsoftshill and put ads on his user page and refused to answer questions about COI and vanity, then that person would be refusing to comply with the basic terms and conditions. As for the rationale Bishzilla/Bishonen used for the block, it is not up to Doc or me to validate: it is up to the community to validate it. Saying that Bishzilla knew that the block would be overturned is horrifically presumptuous. I don't know what any of you know: I know what I know. If you want to know what I know, you have to ask me. Notice the shocking lack of asking Bishonen/Bishzilla why she blocked. Notice the amazing lack of taking the AN/I comment into account. Notice how people not only assume that she was lying, but, in fact, say explicitly that she must have been lying.

The only reason I brought up Giano is to demonstrate what an entirely different matter that is. Some administrators say "Civil" and misunderstand it entirely (they think it has something to do with politeness). Some administrators think that it means deference and assume that there are hierarchies at Misplaced Pages, with the duty of the "lower" to honor the "higher." Other administrators believe that sticks and stones may break bones, but words are what we're made of. Some administrators think that "Misplaced Pages is not censored" applies to interpersonal communication, and not just the puerile insistence on putting up gynecology photos in full color. Because the community splits on this matter, there is repeatedly demonstrated lack of validity for a "civility block." That is completely different from blocking FT2 for still refusing to be honest.

Again: the block "made" ArbCom act because people reacted to it. The block didn't make anyone react because Bishzilla blocked a user who would not communicate. People seem to be upset at the reaction to the block, and they're blaming the blocker for it. Along the way, they assume and presume to know what the blocker thought and they nowhere ask, nowhere listen, nowhere extend the courtesy of the "assume good faith" that went for 18 months for FT2's tergiversations, obfuscations, and horsehockey.

Don't discuss Giano unless you want to refute my observation that the administrator ranks are split about the meaning and application of "civility." If there is consensus there, it will be shocking news to all concerned. Geogre (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The block did not make ArbCom act. It did increase discussion on the issue, but that is only natural. It may have made FT2 act in posting his clarification on his talk page, but you will have to ask him that. ArbCom were discussing the issue, and progress was being made, albeit slowly. More updates from ArbCom might have forestalled Bishonen's actions, and I had suggested, about 5 hours before Bishonen acted, that a public update on what was happening was needed. You talk about presumption as to what Bishonen was thinking, but people are making presumptions about what ArbCom was and was not doing. Did Bishonen actually ask ArbCom what progress was being made? Others did, but I see no evidence that she did. She stated in her block log summary: "Disruption of the arbitration committee and the project." Did she ask arbitrators whether the operation of the committee was being disrupted? Has anyone asked themselves if, given developments elsewhere, continuing to drag this incident out and refusing to let it drop is disrupting the committee? It appears that Bishonen presumed that progress wasn't being made. She was wrong. If Bishonen makes a statement or appeals, I would be quite happy to accept a case for her to defend herself. But if the defence consists of "I made ArbCom act", that won't wash. Other defences might work, but I'm not going to do Bishonen's defence for her. If you want a full timeline of what ArbCom were doing about this, you can ask for that as well, but that will need the rest of the committee to agree to disclosure. For now, I'll point you to what Jimbo said here: "To report: the ArbCom has been in daily, careful, and thoughtful discussions of this issue with FT2, with dozens of messages so far this year including by my count 14 emails this morning alone (pre-Bishonen block)." That doesn't address whether progress was being made, but without further disclosure, you will have to accept my word on that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not for me to defend Bishzilla's block. This is the problem. If Bishzilla is not being admonished for causing reaction, then I'm not sure I get what she is being admonished for or to. If the edit summary was the justification for the admonition, then I do wish that would have been stated, because her edit summaries are often humorous or sarcastic. If, though, the admonition is "there was a big reaction to this block, and that 'made' FT2 react, and it 'made' ArbCom act," then, again, the admonition is aimed at the reaction, not the act. A person who blocks Giano (or me) for "incivility" is disrupting Misplaced Pages, because the grounds of division on "civility" are well known, well charted, and well trod, but someone blocking FT2 for refusing to be honest about COI is valid even if there are "polite" discussions going on. Otherwise, if it isn't valid, the block is overturned, AN/I speaks out to say, "Dummy! That's a bad block!," and life goes on without admonishing anyone. The only way I can see a warning to Bishzilla, and especially the "new sheriff in town" talk FloNight offers about wisdom, is if administrators are supposed to have, as their goal, not whether we're operating honestly, but operating with the least worry. The person causing the worry is the malefactor, not the cop.

For the record, I have not been asked, but I think that the block was licit if previous blocks for the same thing were licit, but I think, too, that it should never have been necessary with a user like FT2. His obfuscation entirely abrogated the right he had to polite and slow discussion, in my view. Geogre (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen is being admonished for an action which was not justified in policy and was practically certain to cause "reaction", to use your terminology. I do not agree that FT2 has engaged in "obfuscation" but even if he had, that can never abrogate the right to polite discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When that "polite discussion" appears entirely unproductive, it seems to me to that it can become disruptive. FT2's unreasonable delay, whether or not last year's incarnation of the Arbcom was aiding and abetting it, had become disruptive. There had been (at the time of the block) no indication from this year's incarnation that they were doing anything. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is like a swan; it gracefully glides over the surface looking serene and majestic, while under the water its legs are thrashing about wildly paddling all over the place. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The appearance of inaction can be just as damaging as inaction itself. You want the community to know that you aren't just ignoring an issue? Talk to them. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And we will do so. The new processes were just bedding in. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. This FT2 issue was bad timing with respect to that. For the record, at least two arbs responded on-wiki to requests from Thatcher and SlimVirgin, see here and here and here, but again, I see no evidence that Bishonen tried contacting any arbitrators. If, in future, updates on progress about an item were made at this new noticeboard, would that satisfy you (and others)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would help greatly. I for one don't particularly want to have to follow Arbitrators around checking all their contributions on usertalk pages to see what the Arbcom is doing. The noticeboard is a very good idea. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Geogre is right, we can't guess Bishonen's motives, understanding or knowledge. And, as I stated above, arbcom should not impute motives, but judge actions. However, the action was unjustified in policy, and it was such that any reasonable administrator should have known that it was unlikely to command consensus, or not be undone. If an administrator believed otherwise, then they lack the judgement to be an admin - since it is obvious to most. It is precisely the same as someone blocking Giano. Incivility IS, as much as you dislike it, contrary to policy (unlike a delay in answering questions which is NOT). Users are routinely blocked for gross incivility, however, any clued admin should know that blocking longterm users (and particularly Giano) is not supported by consensus, so don't do it unless you've got prior consensus! Indeed one should always get consensus for any block, unless it is an emergency, or it is of a nature that consensus usually exist to do it, and can be presumed (routine vandalism, 3RR, overt trolling(?).)--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen clearly stated her motives, understanding and knowledge. There is no guesswork involved here. --TS 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a persistent failure to answer questions is uncivil. And if it is not uncivil in the wonderful world of Misplaced Pages, it is certainly downright rude in the real world. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And equally, in real life, a good many questions can be downright rude as indeed can be persistence in putting them. :) --ROGER DAVIES  15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Very true, but for colleagues to ask about perceived errors in the performance of ones job is generally acceptable, I think. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, that depends entirely on what the questions are and how they are put; whether they're polite enquiries, or prying intrusions, or accusatory denunciations, for example. My real life experience has been that people are usually much more circumspect face-to-face than online. For instance, I only seen a "torches and pitchforks" moment once in real life though they seem to happen online with startling regularity. --ROGER DAVIES  15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think in real life a situation like this (I mean the whole thing, from the oversights onwards) would have been unlikely to occur in the first place. Would take too long to explain in this thread, but think about lines of accountability and our lack of them. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on twenty-plus years commercial experience, I disagree entirely with that :) I can think of many talented and successful people who are sometimes spectacularly accident-prone. --ROGER DAVIES  15:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And none of them have had people around them prepared to correct their mistakes? :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Making mistakes and being accident-prone aren't necessarily the same thing :) And it is possible to fix errors (and significantly reduce the chances of very similar things happening in the future) without creating either a blame culture or huge dramas. --ROGER DAVIES  15:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "blame culture", but if you want to avoid one then admonishing Bish seems to me to be the wrong way to go about it. Fixing errors and reducing the chance of them happening again are what we didn't really see a lot of in this case until after the block. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation is horribly complicated and it's impossible to please everyone. That said, I really don't see that an admonishment is so terrible here, especially since it's so well grounded in policy. --ROGER DAVIES  16:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about FT2 here. But as regards ArbCom communnications, see my comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Was responding to Scott's assertions. TS and I edited simultaneously, which slightly disrupted the flow of this part of the thread. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure the argument this block has no basis in policy is correct. Have a look: Misplaced Pages:Honesty is now a guideline. Additionally, an admonishment by ArbCom is superfluous. The community overturned the block. That sends a clear message that in this particular case, the community felt a block was not needed. ArbCom should refrain from acting when the community has already made its wishes clear. ArbCom is a final resort when the community is unable to manage itself. Jehochman 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The blocking policy gives no basis for this block. Many blocks are overturned by others, sometimes a stronger "no, really, don't do that" is needed, not least to dissuade others. Here arbcom judged that that was needed (you may disagree,but it is their call). If I block Giano for incivility, and someone unblocks, does that make my block OK? No, there will be hell to pay. Blocking should never be used lightly on established users, it causes drama. That much the Giano cycle should have taught us.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict) proposed wording of guideline thingy

In the recent comments, the arbs have said the wording of this should be clearer/stronger to remind users to be civil.

I suggest:-

Advice for editing Misplaced Pages:Requests for Arbitration. Comment only in your own section please. If you wish to respond to a statement or remark by another editor, add to the bottom of your own section the code, ; Response to ] : Your response here. ~~~~ Remain civil The Committee is here to help us edit harmoniously, and that includes actively promoting Misplaced Pages policies of civility and No Personal Attacks, breaches of which may result in a block. Trying to provoke others is also not endearing to the committee. (In the event that a thread becomes heated, take a brief keyboard break and step away.) Be succinct in your comments. Long, rambling additions are less effective. The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project. If your comment is counter-productive, don't hit "save." This applies doubly when editing a busy and heated page such as RfAr. If you require assistance at any point, contact a Clerk or ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration.

Any help to make it more concise and any other suggestions would be great.:) Sticky Parkin 22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo in second section - good start though. I'll propose alternate (stronger) wording until we get the right mix of "helpful" and "stern".--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

typos fixed I think:) Sticky Parkin 23:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I can never remember where to find the Mediawiki page for those edit notices. Where is that one? Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This one ? MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the one for the pretty coloured notice that it is being proposed to change. The one quoted up above. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, back, it was mainly on someone's userpage, though I think it's a mediawiki thing too. One of the places it was was here. User:AGK/A. It seems to have been removed entirely from the RFAR page now? Am I just not spotting it? Someone must've removed it from mediawiki or something if so :/ Sticky Parkin 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is here MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Requests_for_arbitration Sticky Parkin 18:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The comment at MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-4-Requests for arbitration should also be noted. Maybe this discussion should be moved there, leaving a link from here? Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Guide to Arbitration

Can somebody in the know rewrite the guide and the various subpages to reflect the current process. I was most confused by the section How requests are processed and the decision to accept, which states that "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes." and the subsequent description of how the hearing would proceed once it had been accepted: Evidence and Workshop pages and the like. The Bishzilla case seems to have jumped straight to voting on the motions when there is a net vote of 8 to decline hearing the case. I know more speedy handling of cases was stressed as desirable during the election, but the new Arbcom must be congratulated on trying to get the cases are closed before they are opened. Nobody can complain about heel-dragging now. Yomangani 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears at first glance, that the arbitration guide is out of date, especially vis-a-vis the way motions work. I'll try to take a crack at updating it over this weekend and the next - or maybe haze the newbies with the ordeal.--Tznkai (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating the guide is, incidentally, on our agenda. :-) Kirill 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Bishzilla case truly reflects the way motions work now, I'd suggest revising the process rather than the guide. Judgment, Sentencing, Decision on hearing the case, Presentation of evidence, Proposed sentencing (assuming the Evidence and Workshop phases aren't now skipped completely) doesn't sound the most logical order to me, especially if the decision on hearing the case results in it being declined. Yomangani 02:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if the Arbs vote to accept a case, it still follows the guide (afaik, there may have been some minor changes). The fairly recent innovation of "Motions" is for use where the evidence is all out in the open already, the Arbs see a simple fix, and decide to spare everyone the drama of a full case. IMO they work pretty well much of the time. the wub "?!" 11:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And if they vote to decline, they can circumvent the procedure and skip straight to throwing rotten fruit at the guilty parties? Judicial procedure at its finest. Let's have all cases declined, it will speed things up no end. Yomangani 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Newyorkbrad has commented in the past on summary judgments like this where a full case would be unlikely to change things (the presumption being that the pertinent evidence is available from the request) and a motion is used instead of opening a case (I'll ask him if he can remember where he commented on this). See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions for examples of motions without a case. The motion that admonished Moreschi was an example of a motion-instead-of-a-case (though that arose from a clarification request, I think). A better example is the admonishment of Prodego mentioned by Brad at the RFAR.

"It is apparent that Prodego blocked Misza13 to force further discussion or action on the issue of unauthorized adminbots and that he feels strongly that a matter of principle is involved. We are not aware of any prior sanctions against Prodego for any prior misuse of administrator tools. Nonetheless, under all the circumstances, this block was a highly inappropriate administrator action warranting a sanction by this committee."

Bishonen can, of course, appeal, and that could lead to a full case, but that would be a decision for her to take when looking at the bigger picture. One thing I do note is that Bishonen only posted to protest at FT2's statement, rather than making a statement herself. If Bishonen wants to make a statement, she should do so soon. I will post a note from the RFAR to this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a lovely evolution of the process. Can we have a motion to tar and feather Bish based on the presumption that we know all there is to know despite the parties to the dispute not having given evidence-FT2 said he will supply diffs if the case is accepted then withdrew his statement until such time as he could add diffs, Bish was presumably waiting for the case to be accepted before giving her evidence (though I do not presume to know the facts without asking). Once she is tarred and feathered she can appeal to be carried to the river to have it washed off and should her appeal be successful we can all wipe the incident from our memories and pretend not to notice the residual globs of black liquid and goose down that drip from her as she moves around. Yomangani 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comment below. I've only just become aware that discussion was taking place on this page. I have raised the matter of summary motions in declined requests on the ArbCom mailing list, and asked for clarification on this. Without dwelling on this particular request, can you suggest a place onwiki to discuss the matter of summary motions? Somewhere where substantial input can be sought from the community as to whether this is a useful tool for ArbCom to have, and under what circumstances it should be used? I don't want to pre-empt anything, but please put Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard on your watchlist, both to get an idea of what else is happening, and for future announcements. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not being familiar enough with RFAR myself, I can't suggest an appropriate venue, but I would like to know when and where such a discussion takes place (I have watchlisted the Noticeboard). To issue summary judgments in declined cases on motions that were seemingly created on a whim (who asked for the summary judgment? one of the involved parties?) and with the assumption that the Arbs' opinions are the facts would strike me as laughable if it wasn't damaging to the parties involved. Yomangani 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. It is definitely on the radar, and I've pointed people at this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I bet that'll mean nobody notices the new statement I just posted, I guess I'm doomed to be forever on the wrong page. Well, doesn't matter. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. Replied on main RFAR page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up, I don't suppose the ArbCom can hold off in its desire to pass motions on declined cases until the community discussion takes place and it is agreed that the committee should have such powers? Would somebody be bold enough to remove the motions section? Close the Bishzilla request as declined? If the Arbs can't bear to see their consideration of the motions going to waste, could they accept the case so there can be a semblance of correct procedure? Or, failing that, re-add the request for the case user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James_Cantor at The Man Who Would Be Queen and related pages (which was initiated after the Bishzilla request and closed as declined earlier) and add some motions to that, so we at least have a level playing field in that all parties to all requests have a chance enjoy the novel reworking of the process? Did the Arbs have no opinions on that declined request that could be transmuted into facts and used to support a motion or two? Yomangani 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought your question was about the arbitration guide, instead of a thinly veiled attack based on irrelevant political principles. But here is a relevant one that answers you - the case was closed early as a matter of discretion - based on the lack of outstanding business (such as motions and arbitrator questions to parties).--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry the irony was lost on you, I did try to make it quite clear, there was nothing really veiled about it. I also thought there was nothing of an attack (may we not question the workings of Arbcom?) or any irrelevant political principles unless you feel that challenging the committee's right to award itself new powers and radically alter Arbitration procedures without consulting the community is somehow irrelevant. I'd love to know what you consider the irrelevant political(?) principles to be. To be clear, since irony seems to have failed to get the point across, I was rather hoping that at least one of the Arbs might say "Hold on, altering the Arbitration procedure to allow voting on motions on declined cases based on our gut feelings might be not be the best idea we've ever had, let's remove that section until we get a chance to get some community input". However, maybe I'm alone in considering it a terrible idea, and what the Arbcom have taken as tacit acceptance is heartfelt community support. Perhaps they did consult the community and it's just that nobody has pointed to the discussion to enlighten me. Yomangani 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've drafted a few different responses - and they're all overly long, but if you're really interested in what I think we can continue on either my or your talk page. I'll settle for making two smaller points. First, real world government is a terrible model for encyclopedia governance, the underlying assumptions are different. Second - for this situation, case or no, its the same people making the decisions, and the facts I would hope, are pretty uncontroversial. All that is left, is opinion and discretion, and I think the Arbiters have made their opinions known. There does seem to be a significant dropping of the ball in notifying Bishonen of the motions however. Perhaps the clerks office will begin notifying all relevant parties after motions are proposed as a matter of routine procedure. (If that was in fact, extant procedure, I apologize for dropping the ball).--Tznkai (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We obviously fundamentally disagree on most points, but we can save that argument for the anticipated public discussion. I do agree, however, that real world government is a terrible model for encyclopedia governance. Yomangani 10:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Request statements vs talk page

Please see my comments here. In summary, if there is extensive discussion on this page that arbitrators need to be aware of, please let them know. Some arbitrators check this talk page, but not all do so. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh..

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A summary of the conclusions reached...

Reading the whole mess above...

This was why I implored the ArbCom to lay out a schedule or an agenda publicly saying they were going to address issues, and giving a time scale of when we can expect reports back.

ArbCom of last year acted opaque and insular, and we had no idea what steps were being taken to solve problems, and found out to our dismay that such steps were being blocked by certain members of the committee. So now, we don't care about 'we have new members' or 'we need more time to look into this'. We want to know you're really looking into this, and assurances that you will do so at some undefined future point are not good enough. Right now, we're all going to work on the assumption that you'll act in the poor manner of the previous committee until you demonstrate otherwise.

I strongly suggest you provide us with an agenda of the reform issues you will be investigating, including dates by which we can expect reports.

Again, I will remind you that I'm going to go ahead and push forward ratification of a new ArbCom policy in May. --Barberio (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Committee is moving this direction now. First naming Kirill as the Committee Coordinator for organizational matters. Then, making an announcement Notice Board. Our internal reorganization is going well. Don't mistake lack of public action for inactivity. The full Committee is methodically working toward making our internal decision making more public. Give us some time to make the adjusts needed, okay? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Barberio, we have an agenda and you are not the only thing we have to concern ourselves with. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm asking, is if we can see that Agenda? --Barberio (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's always been the plan. We've been finalizing it for announcement over the last few days so I don't expect it'll be too long now. It is, incidentally, much easier said than done to get consensus over precise priorities of sixteen independent (and largely strongminded) volunteers, living in multiple time-zones around the world. --ROGER DAVIES  18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We could show you, but then we'd have to kill you. --TS 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it need come to that :) --ROGER DAVIES  18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's "we" in this context? :) ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FloNight, the problem is that the Arbitration Committee was methodically working toward making internal decisions back when we had the RfC on Arbitration. I withdrew my request to put policy change ratification in the elections, because in October I was told that the Arbitration Committee was methodically working towards making internal decisions.

Saying you are "methodically working towards making internal decisions" is, at this point, meaningless. It's been said before too many times.

What would be meaningful at this moment would be to provide us with an agenda and time table. I don't want you to 'immediately take action', I want you to give us a date by which we can expect you to have taken action.

What I don't want is for the buck to be passed around, "internal discussions" getting nowhere because there's no date set for them to end, and before you know it, it's election time again and we all have to start over from scratch again. If you can't set a deadline by which you must provide the community with your recommendations for reform, then human nature is going to mean it just keeps getting postponed, till you can punt the whole mess over to the next committee. --Barberio (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Barberio, I've hung back for a while here, but please. Lay off this constant drumbeat of ArbCom complaints. The ArbCom has been in their jobs for less then 3 weeks. This is not a full-time job, as much as you seem them to think they should drop any semblance of a personal or professional life and spend twenty hours a day coming up with everything new. You're complaining about how things were going in October. Guess what? 75% of the ArbCom wasn't there in October. They came in January 1. There's something like FOUR Arbitrators who were there in October. All that previous discussion is probably null and void, because no one who was discussing it is still ON the list (let's not forget that the ArbCom-L is now aimed at current/sitting/arbs only, so they can't even jump in there!) So please, quit it with the constant badgering of ArbCom. If you really must do whatever disruptive activity in May you keep bringing up. Fine. Do it in May. Stop trying to use it as a Sword of Damocles hanging over ArbCom's head. SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 'beating a drum'. I'm asking for some things that I expect of even volunteer run organisations of the scope of Misplaced Pages is now. As I see it, there are two major issues here.

1) Orderly hand over of power shouldn't be 'new guys are in, we throw everything away, and have to spend two months redoing stuff from scratch'. The members leaving the committee knew they'd be gone, and should have prepared some handover support for their replacements. The remaining members should have readied themselves to carry over continuity and brief the new members, otherwise the whole 'staggered tranche' idea is meaningless anyway. The new members should have been getting themselves ready to take on the job from the moment they were nominated. "We have new members" shouldn't be an excuse, the committee should act to minimise the effect of handover. Business starts day one, not day thirty one, 'warm up' should happen before the new committee become active not after.

2) It shouldn't require pestering and prodding for the Committee to produce timetables and agendas on actions they intend to take. Deciding their agenda should be their first priority, otherwise they'll be disorganised and nothing will get done. Their agenda should be public, and include explicit time scales that can be used to measure the success of the committee on timely addressing of issues. It should not take more than two weeks to make an agenda, and an initial suggested agenda should have been made by the outgoing committee.

Yes, I get that the Committee are volunteers, not paid, and working on this part time. But this is still a multi-million dollar project with a huge readership and global impact. This should be considered a professional volunteer position. You might think I'm holding ArbCom to a too high standard, I think we've let ArbCom slide by on a lower standard than the project as it is now deserves.--Barberio (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Barberio, it's all in the way you've approached this. You demanded arbcom act on your concerns on your timetable. You did not politely inquire nor did you present it as a community concern. I see few have supported you in this or in that clarification you filed. It's no surprise you are getting so little response, which is what you deserve. They said they are working on it and I'm sure they are. When you pay their salary, then you can demand things this way, but I doubt you're ready to do that. So far this arbcom has done more than last year's so give them the time they need. Are you willing to go through an arb election next year to see that things get done your way? 10 of 16 arbs are new and almost all promised reform. Rome was not built in a day and arb reform doesn't happen in 3 weeks just because Barberio demanded it be done instantly. Despite all this drama mongering by you, they'll probably still get this done before your so-called deadline. You're acting like a spoiled kid. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to take chiding comments from someone who does not read what I actually wrote. I never, at any point, demanded immediate action on reform. I did, and do, demand a commitment from the committee to report to the community their recommendations for reform by a date some time in the future. I have suggested a time scale of months. I have said I will proceed myself to restart stalled processes which I expect to progress in May.

Reacting to all of this as if somehow I'm trying to usurp ArbCom, or threaten them, is not something I can consider a rational response. I have no interest in being a member of the committee myself, only in very strongly urging them to take appropriate and professional actions.--Barberio (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will roll their eyes at me saying this, but leave them be for a little bit. They're 20 days into this, they're volunteers, and they have to hash this stuff out. Hand off support from old arbs? This isn't a transition of power from Bush to Obama, this is a volunteer website and a hobby for probably 99% of us. Not one of these things is life and death or even vaguely, barely close, no matter how stupid or retarded we collectively get at times. If we're at March 1st, 2009--three months into a three year session--then I'd be grumpy too, after all the promised changes, if nothing has come about by hook or by enforced crook.

And like they said above, they have to sort out these decisions amongst themselves--hopefully they aren't taking into account any consensus or need for consensus from anyone but current elected arbs (in other words, Jimmy and the ex-arbs don't get to decide, stop, or hinder reform, as they have no authority on that now), and I'd politely ask them to just clear that up, since I'm picking up in Barbeiro's angst a little bit of hostility toward that sort of notion, implied or otherwise. rootology (C)(T) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The "ex-arbs on the mailing list" (and on the private wiki) issue has already been addressed. Here is the announcement. I'm not sure that everyone appreciated the full implications of it. --ROGER DAVIES  18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree. Misplaced Pages is a major source of information now for millions of people, it's a multi-million dollar project, actions on Misplaced Pages can now have severe impact on a person's life.

You and I may consider this a hobby. But the position of Arbitrator should not be considered a hobby, it should at this point be considered a professional volunteer position. If you don't or can't be professional as an Arbitrator, you shouldn't stand for the office. --Barberio (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How pompous. I expect to see your name on the ballott this Dec, Barberio, and to see you soundly defeated.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How many times must I say I have no intent or desire to serve as an Arbitrator for it to stick? --Barberio (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be in a vast minority of opinion in this, Barberio. I really wish you would reconsider this crusade. It's not realistic AT THIS POINT to expect "professional volunteers" spending their time doing nothing but ArbCom business. ArbCom is moving forward. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at what they HAVE done, considering the.. distractions that have been caused (no, I'm not referring to you in this case, but some of the active/extant cases that have been.. distracting lately) Rome wasn't built in a day, Barberio. SirFozzie (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be using a different meaning of 'professional' than I do. 'Professional' means someone who takes the job seriously and treats it as a job not a hobby, not that they do it full time or for pay. I know multiple people who have board member, executive-committee, and VP positions; which are part time and unpaid; and they conduct themselves professionally in those position.

I would like to be able to expect the same of an executive-committee in a prominent multimillion dollar organisation.

Membership of the Arbitration Committee should not be a Hobby, treating it as such is probably what got everyone into a mess last year. --Barberio (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Without impugning the good faith or good intentions of some of our past arbitrators, I can somewhat understand your concern.. that if an arbitrator finds that they will not be able to provide the requisite amount of attention to their duties, they should resign.

I also saw a comment from Jimbo that he intends to monitor Arbitrators activities and to "suggest" they resign if it drops off (with their slots to be filled in the June 2008 "special election" that will elect at least two new arbitrators (to take Deskana's and FT2's arbcom seats). But I do not see any indication that there are any current arbitrators who treat the job they were elected to as a "mere hobby".

Again, your pushing here is not productive, and may in fact be counter-productive. SirFozzie (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as soon as I see an agenda with time-scales on when we'll see reform recommendations, you can have my apology for assuming the worst of ArbCom.

But it has been suggested above that we shouldn't expect professional conduct from the Committee, and it was that which I was responding to. --Barberio (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean me, I never said it shouldn't be professional. We should all be professional, but my point was this is a hobby. Arbs aren't on-call, with a pager strapped to their hip, was my point. If they think they need so many weeks or a month or two to get ramped up on multiple years of internal history, good. Why not just wait till their agenda is published with their timetables? If they said "days" away above, then there's nothing else to be done from poking them with a stick between now and a couple days from now. If you want professional, that's how it works in the business world. A responsible company doesn't release material or content until it's ready to do so, no matter how much the odd stakeholder yells for them. rootology (C)(T) 20:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Executives and directors, even unpaid and part-time, have legal authority and responsibility and also (presumably) control over money and/or products. Perhaps you were looking for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors? Although, neither the Board nor the Arbitration Committee preside over the core product (articles). In that sense, there is no analog here to the executive committee you describe. They're volunteers, in a non-executive capacity, and what's more the Committee operates on consensus - so I doubt any arbitrator will unilaterally post something until its been agreed upon by all. Back on the topic of content, though... Barberio, still only 4 content edits since November 1. Avruch 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd read my user page, you'd have noted I'm semi retired from wiki activity until I see signs that reform is actually taking place. I hope, and would like, to return to productive editing soon. --Barberio (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You may, with my grateful thanks for all your hard work, completely retire from editing even Misplaced Pages space, and devote your valuable time to other activities. If you're not actually editing articles I don't see any point in your editing the wiki at all, much less trying to boss the arbcom around. --TS 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Committee for publishing their agenda, and offer my apologies for any stress caused by being strident in asking for one to be published. I encourage this practice to be continued, and for maintaining a published agenda to be part of the normal housekeeping duties associated with the Arbitration Committee. It is an important step forward in better communications with the community at large. --Barberio (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement RfC

The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to comment and contribute. The Committee will close the RfC one month from its opening. After the closing, the Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee,
Vassyana (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20

Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.

Two points that should be kept in mind:

• Several of the measures being considered may require some form of community ratification prior to being fully adopted. The target date for this is not explicitly listed, but can be assumed to occur after the final date for internal Committee deliberations.
• The target dates are not set in stone; while we will make our best effort to meet them, there are any number of unforeseen circumstances which may cause them to change, and they are subject to revision as other issues arise.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
   • Initiate RFC by January 21
   • Compile RFC results by February 21
   • Draft reform proposals by March 7
   • Finalize reform proposals by March 21
2. Determine procedure for publishing proposals
   • Decision by January 31
3. Appoint CU & OS operators
   • Finalize election setup by January 31
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
4. Determine case acceptance criteria
   • Decision by January 31
5. Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
   • Draft proposal by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
6. Decide on designating an IRC liaison
   • Compile chanop comments by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
7. Decide on appointing CU & OS auditors
   • Finalize proposal by February 7
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
8. Determine recusal standards
   • Draft proposal by February 7
   • Decision by February 21
9. Determine workshop page structure
   • Decision by February 14
10. Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
11. Decide on acceptance of private evidence
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
12. Prepare updated guide to arbitration
    • Draft by February 21
    • Finalized by March 7
13. Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
    • Draft proposal by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
14. Decide on locations of arbitration pages
    • Draft structure by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
    • Implementation by March 14
15. Move forward on handling civility
    • Detailed agenda by February 28
16. Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
17. Determine approach to considering off-wiki actions
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
18. Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Decision by March 21
19. Develop an arbitrator recall process
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Final proposal by March 21
20. Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
    • Draft by March 7
    • Finalized by March 21
21. Move forward on content dispute resolution
    • Detailed agenda by March 14
22. Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
    • Draft proposal due March 14
    • Decision due March 21
23. Prepare updated transition document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30
24. Prepare updated induction document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30

For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka and Arbitration Enforcement

I ask FloNight and Vassyana (especially Vassyana) to reconsider their request for Elonka to step down from enforcement issues. This comment especially irks me, This involves far more than this single recent incident and the complaints of warned/sanctioned users. If you have concerns about Elonka's judgement as an administrator, then open a full case, during which time you can ask her to stand down from whatever admin actions you are concerned about. You should not make vague comments about how someone is "not helpful" or that there are "far more" issues unless you are going to act on it. If this dispute is archived off the page without a formal finding of fact against Elonka, you will have undermined her ability to act at WP:AE (and as an admin generally) on the basis of your vague unspecified concerns. And I hope it would be obvious why a motion without a full case would be utterly inadequate to consider the situation. An editor can say, "I don't like how Smith handles his administrative duties" but an Arbitrator can not, unless he/she backs it up with action. Thatcher 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My statements have been redacted in response to your request. Vassyana (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitrition

Is it recommended that I get into an edit wars before I file one of these? Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is recommended that you do not get into any edit wars, and only file a request for arbitration if you think it will help write an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)