Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Callanecc (talk | contribs) at 06:38, 23 July 2014 (→Confusing layout: fixed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Liberté

I am expected to appeal my restrictions in the Infoboxes case, so said Nikkimaria who seems to follow me everywhere. I will not meet the expectation. I came to like my restrictions so much that I decided that I can live and die with them (look for red on my user page). Sometimes I walk away after two comments to a discussion even if I don't have to. It saves time. - I try to stick to the restriction of not adding an infobox to an article that I didn't create, however sometimes I remember the work I put into an article so well that I forget that I didn't "create" it, for example Victor Bruns, Polish Requiem, Richard Adeney, - apologies. - Can we perhaps invent a template explaining for our readers: "This composition by Penderecki has no infobox - as other of his compositions - because the main contributor is restricted"?

On Canadian Independence Day, Nikkimaria made an edit that I didn't understand, out of the blue collapsing three items of information in a long established infobox and removing details. I don't know why. It's one of these discussions where I walked away. Is that the expected behaviour with a "level of professionalism" mentioned in the decision? - Dreaming of a bit more egalité, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, knowing when to walk away is one of the skills to learn if one wishes to edit with a "level of professionalism", especially if one constantly edits in and around contentious areas.

Personally, I rarely edit in contentious areas, but I also carefully avoid any semblance of professionalism, as is appropriate for an amateur. (In the old days, they used to divide us into Gentlemen and players.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes (by Agnosticaphid, 29 May 2013), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Logging AC/DS notices

I was told that, when notifying an editor that discretionary sanctions are in effect, I am supposed to log that notice. Where is that done? Am I supposed to edit the case decision, which I thought was limited after closure to arbs and clerks? I had thought, maybe incorrectly, that the edit filter would do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#2014. Second Quantization (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was also told that I should only notify an editor of discretionary sanctions if there may have been misconduct on their part. Is that correct? If so, that should be clarified, and is not consistent with the wording of the template. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You will notice on the logging page that notifications do not happen very often in a given year. This is because people are generally notified when the person believes there is an issue, and often this is substantiated in the logging itself. Generally the person is expected to use common sense and be uninvolved in the specific dispute. Some administrators claim only they can give notices, this is wrong (unless policy has changed recently), Second Quantization (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

That all sounds about right to me. When exactly to notify has been the subject of some debate, but the primary thing is that an "alert" is only an alert to the fact that they are editing in an area that is subject to DS. It is like a warning sign on a road, there to alert you to the oresence of a hazard. It is explicitly not a judgement on the quality of their contributions. And SQ is right that anyone may alert anyone else (assuming no other restrictions are already in place on them) to the presence of DS. When done properly it should be more like "hey be careful there buddy, there's rocks in the road up ahead" than "hey you drive like an idiot". Some people will take it the wrong way regardless though, that's just human nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The above heading has the word 'logging' in it which is enough to get me started on the non-logging rule that we have due to the new DS system which employs an edit filter. See an Arbcom motion of 3 May 2014, 'Discretionary sanctions (2014)'. Anyone who is planning to issue an alert under WP:ARBPS should get familiar with WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. The {{Ds/alert}} template is what is currently used, and it is stated to be the only valid method. Alerts should no longer be logged in the arbitration case according to User:AGK, who created the edit filter that does the recording of alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) notified, EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, forgot about that bit, logging is now automatic. I am thinking of proposing that alerting be automatic as well, but I just had the idea a few minutes ago so it's not exactly ready for prime time yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox There was discussion about that either on the DS review talk page or somewhere related - a bot which issues an alert automatically if someone edits a page under DS. From memory, it was shot down for a few reasons, such as if it's only a minor grammatical fix then it's pointless and annoying to be altered. One solution was that you would only be alerted if you made a change more or less than x bytes, there was opposition to that because sometimes that person would need to be alerted (eg an edit war over changing one instance of Israeli to Palestinian is a fairly small change in terms of bytes but big in terms of using DS). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

I don't know if I'm presenting this in the right forum, but I have a suggestion. When presenting the final results on a request for enforcement, it would be good to have those results qualified, much as they are in an ArbCom itself.

I noticed in the Gun control ArbCom, under Findings of fact, each involved party was named, and then the policies they'd broken were listed, with diffs to the edits that broke each policy. Like this:

JohnParker

• Edit warring
• Personal attack

JohnWhorfin

• Battleground conduct
• Incivility
• Soapboxing

And so on. It's very clear exactly what they were being sanctioned for. That would be a good thing to have in enforcement requests that end in sanctions, I think.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In general it's a good idea and a good practice, but patterns of abuse don't always lend themselves to this way. Second Quantization (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Confusing layout

Concerning the boxes "Misplaced Pages Arbitration" and "Arbitration Committee Proceedings":

"Recently Closed Cases" is misnamed because it links, as far as I can see, to all historical cases, even those closed a long time ago.

Duplicate, overlapping, and slightly-differently-worded links to the same information, overlapping information, or different presentation of the same information is confusing. There should be exactly one clear link to every relevant sub-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.7.119 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

AUSC appointments: nominate now

The 2014 appointments to AUSC are now open. The AUSC is an ArbCom body that inspects and regulates the use of CheckUser and Oversight.

All administrators are eligible to volunteer this year. To volunteer, read WP:AUSC to understand the role; the appointments page to understand the process; then email the committee with a nomination statement. You will be presented for community comments and a Q&A in August.

Questions are very welcome on any arbitrator's talk page, or by email.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)