Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rockfang (talk | contribs) at 06:58, 17 March 2014 (→Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Decision on Gun Control Case

When will the Arbitration Committee start work on a decision in the Gun Control case? A decision was planned on 12 February 2014, and it is now March. I realize that the ArbCom has been asked to handle a lot of secondary issues such as clarifications and discretionary sanctions reviews. However, the two open cases have been long-simmering disputes in which conduct issues have made resolution of content issues difficult. If the ArbCom doesn't have time or resources to complete the cases, would it be possible to impose discretionary sanctions by temporary injunction? When will decisions on these two open cases start being worked? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I had this same question. Even an updated, revised date of a decision would be welcome. Liz 00:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Gaijin42 asked for a "revised ETA" almost two weeks ago - to no effect. It is now almost four weeks since the decision was originally due, and it is clearly less than optimal that no indication of current status has been given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I sent an email to the arbs earlier today and asked for an update. --Rschen7754 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Any update on this case, Rschen7754? It looks like a proposed decision has yet to be even started. Liz 17:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 17:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There have unfortunately been some technical issues with site access that have impeded progress on this matter. It is on our radar and is being worked on on the arbitration wiki, we hope to have a proposed decision on-wiki soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Have any of the arbitrators been trying to access the site in the evening from US East Coast? If so, I suggest that the arbitrators pass their concerns on to the system administrators. Severe performance problems for users on the US East Coast are being discussed at WP:VPT. Two theories have to do either with the WMF servers in Florida or with Verizon as the primary ISP here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the US East Coast and I believe I've run into that issue myself. Hopefully it will be resolved soon. A delay in page-loading that is annoying enough in regular editing, becomes a serious barrier to progress when there are 40 or 50 diffs in evidence that one wants to check. (Also, is it just me, or do diffs take longer to load from https than they did before?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary dismissal

I think there should be some procedure developed for rapidly dismissing certain case requests. A request that was just added is one of many examples where anyone knowledgeable about the process who looks at the request can tell you it will be declined unanimously. The dispute is in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, there is no indication of any meaningful dispute resolution, and it is launched by a user who was clearly either not aware of other venues more suited for this type of request or confused RFAR with one of those venues. Certain requests are just inevitably going to be declined for obvious reasons and there should be a way for this to happen quickly to minimize any potential for drama that such requests bring about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We've already got one but thanks for the suggestion,  Roger Davies 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Conduct at AE

In a recently closed AE request, the tone of many of the comments from other editors was unacceptable; in particular, several editors attempted to use the AE thread to attack other individuals (whether by name or by implication) or attempted cast aspersions against broad groups of editors whom they consider to be their "opponents". Towards the end of the request, I took a harder line on such comments by removing unsupported allegations, personal attacks, and general slurs, and blocked two editors. I'd like to see other admins take a similar zero-tolerance approach to such conduct, and I'd like the instructions and editnotice for AE to be very explicit that such conduct is likely to result in blocks. Filing an AE request does not give your "opponents" license to attack you or cast aspersions regarding your motives, and if we treat it as such, it will have a chilling effect on future reports. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I would have been an "involved administrator" in that case but decided to not contribute. The following comments are in general terms and not referring to the people who posted on that case.) While I sympathise with your reasoning, I don't entirely agree. Sometimes, actually often, people file AE cases for impure motives that are obvious to people involved in that field but are probably not obvious to an uninvolved administrator. It should be ok to say so, provided it is done honestly and evidence is provided. Naturally there has to be a limit to the slanging, but I think administrative pages won't work properly if held to the same level of civility and agf that is required elsewhere. Zero 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What? Assuming good faith and civility are not quite the same thing. Assuming good faith, after all, means I (we) assume good faith, absent evidence that dispels the assumption -- but that can be done civilly, that is without invective. If there is a reason not to assume good faith then the evidence should be provided but without histrionics. Nonetheless, there is no good reason, at all, for admin boards to have more incivility -- that only rots the project more from the top down (or from the bottom up). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with HJM. This has been a recurring theme in some AE areas for quite some time - HJM is not talking about "impure motives" he's talking about groups of users attempting to use AE threads as a forum/excuse for personal attacks--Cailil 09:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell was right to block two users for misconduct at AE, and I've in the past similarly sanctioned users for the misuse of the AE noticeboard as a battleground. Of course, ideally, the same standard would apply across all fora, not only arbitration-related ones.  Sandstein  10:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'd support this. In AC cases, there is a level of formality and process that is not present on noticeboards. I think AE should take after AC more than AN/I and "pile-ons" (where every editor who has ever had a beef with an involved party comes to bring up old grudges) should be actively discouraged. Liz 16:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The general concept of maintaining decorum at AE seems good. The AE complaint being discussed is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Gilabrand. For purposes of review here I'll note that User:Bukrafil was blocked by HJ for one attack, per this, and User:Tritomex was blocked after another diff. Tritomex did not name the person he was complaining about, but he seems to have been referring to Nishidani. A detailed explanation of the Purim issue is now at the top of Nishidani's user page. After looking closely I agree with HJ that the removals and blocks were the right thing to do. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't link to the specific thread because my point was intended as a general one, but I welcome review of my actions. What would people think of adding wording to the effect of "personal attacks and unsupported assertions may result in a block without further warning"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How about: "If you make a personal attack on another editor, or make negative statements about a user but without supplying any diffs to back up your assertion you may be blocked without further warning." EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than getting into the whole always-controversial blocking for incivility thing, ya'll should simply heed the existing words "Messages posted here that egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted." in the AE instructions, and then just remove the offensive messages? NE Ent 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For me at least the issue is not civility, but unsupported accusations. If you accuse user:Example of X then you must include evidence of user:Example doing or being X, otherwise you should expect to be blocked. If you accuse "some editors" of Y then you must include evidence of two or more users doing or being Y, otherwise you should expect to be blocked. It is irrelevant whether you do this civilly ("I believe user:Example is editing inappropriately with regards to Widgets") or otherwise ("User:Example is a fucking biased troll about Widgets"). The latter should obviously lead to at least a warning about civility, but both should result in a block for unsupported allegations of misconduct at AE. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Changed wording of lead sentence

I've boldly tweaked the wording of the first sentence of the project page. My reason for doing this is that lately I've noticed that many users are unclear about the difference between arbitration and mediation. They seem to believe that formal mediation is simply the last step before taking a case to arbitration. We continually have to repeat the refrain that these are two separate forms of dispute resolution—arbitration for conduct disputes and mediation for content disputes. My hope is that the revised wording will clarify the two different streams of dispute resolution and thus help to head off this sort of forum shopping. Of course, if I've introduced some new absurdity, please revise, revert, or otherwise adjust my wording. Sunray (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek

Original clarification request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Someone not using his real name (talk) at 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Link to relevant decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_Toddst1_request_for_arbitration

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Someone not using his real name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Holdek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Someone not using his real name

Apparently Toddst1 was desysopped in some drama I have not followed closely, and consequently Holdek (originally blocked by Toddst1) was unblocked (by Worm that Turned/ArbCom). Holdek now seems to claim that his block for socking was overturned . Has the committee decided that Holdek was not socking? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Worm That Turned, in his rather convoluted write-up there, does not clearly say there whether he thinks Holdek was not socking (to harass Ymblanter). Also, I want to know if this was a committee decision. The "not socking" IP is still blocked for about two years, by the way . Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Writ Keeper

Looks like. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Holdek

I have made an unblock request so that the IP's block log, where my username is mentioned as "clearly a sock" (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=68.50.128.91&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1), is updated. I'm not sure if that was the best venue to make the request, but I couldn't find any instructions for an alternative. Holdek (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Request was accepted on March 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:68.50.128.91&diff=598082168&oldid=598006520. Holdek (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The subcommittee only overturned Toddst1's extension of the block duration to indefinite. We did not decide that the original 1-month block was unsupportable, and our recent decision (which Worm That Turned implemented) should not be interpreted in that way. AGK 19:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear, and to reply to Carcharoth's point, I do consider this a BASC action. WTT may have acted in his own capacity, but he unwittingly had the backing of the subcommittee. However, as Newyorkbrad observes, at this point it hardly matters. AGK 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've probably mucked up a little, because I've implemented the unblock off my own back rather an as a BASC decision. As I say, I did discuss this on the BASC list, and there was agreement to this solution. I believe the 1 month block was good and necessary, though the indef was excessive. I've explained it at Holdek's talk page, my talk page and ANI now. Hopefully that's clear enough. Worm(talk) 09:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure what is going on here. I thought this was a BASC decision. I commented on the appeal and supported what WTT did, but this is the first I've heard that it was done as an individual action. If so, shouldn't a statement be made above by WTT if it was a non-arbitrator action? Since you were acting after a BASC discussion, I think it was in fact a BASC decision, even if you don't think it was. AGK, do you agree that this was a BASC decision? Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Holdek indicates that his request for an unblock of the IP was granted on March 4. It seems to me that resolves the issue such that there's nothing else we need to do here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)