Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:46, 18 January 2009

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)

Meet the new arbcom, same as the old arbcom

The best that can be said is they were more prompt about dashing all hopes for change than last year's. Hasn't EK earned the right to be considered a user in good standing? --Random832 (contribs) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

He IS a user in good standing, the only remedy left is that he's not to comment about/interact with Phil. If this is a sticking point, I really am not filled with good vibes about what would happen if that was stricken as well. Let it go, deal with the 99.99% of Misplaced Pages that ISN'T about a three year old issue at this point. SirFozzie (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should retract the insinuation you just made. --Random832 (contribs) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason that I should retract good faith concerns about why this is such a sticking point that he and you cannot let it go. SirFozzie (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The continued presence of any remedy carries with it an implicit suggestion that the remedy has merit and is in fact necessary. You don't think that someone could want that gone for its own sake without actually intending to do anything that the remedy purportedly prevents? --Random832 (contribs) 17:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to the point that he's fought it, and thrown ArbCom's remedy back in its face. Half a loaf is better then none, right? SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Half a gallon of sewage is still sewage. All he wants is to not have any remaining black marks on his status. Removing all but one is an insult. --Random832 (contribs) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a very strange idea of insult, that's as far as I'll say, since anything else will probably be perceived as an attack. 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, Phil's evidence-free claims of wikistalking, of involvement in the police incident, and of involvement in the ED article, would seem to be evidence in favor of the need for a mutual restriction to keep him away from EK just as EK is kept away from him. In light of this would the committee be willing to reopen the request for clarification? --Random832 (contribs) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - Phil is stalked and harassed IRL, based on a suggestion from Everyking posted on WR and possibly EK's actual doing - and you're saying we should punish Phil. Congradulations - you win dumbest-suggestion-of-the-year award. Impressive considering it's only january 5. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How about some evidence to go with those accusations? --Random832 (contribs) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very convenient that you ask, considering that the WR thread where they discussed harassing Phil in real life was substantially and later deleted in order to make it difficult to determine who was responsible for the harassment. (Here is the Internet Archive copy of the altered version; Here is the pre-whitewashed version of what EK wrote. To wit:

EK: "Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy. Someone should start sending copies of his WP cyber-bullying antics to other members of the faculty/administration there.

Hushthis: Good idea, but the first people to contact when reading ambiguous boasts of homicide are not school faculty - it is best to contact people who know how to investigate possible homicides.

Daniel Brandt: If I know anything about how grad school works, it wouldn't take much to put him in a position where he either decides to leave Misplaced Pages or decides that he doesn't need a Ph.D. after all.

According to Phil, the police started an investigation after receiving a specific tip-off, but would not tell him who made the tip-off. EK may have been the person who gave them that tip off - we don't know - but the idea most certainly originated with him, and therefore he is at-least partly responsible. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'll just take your word for that screenshot not being faked, right? Though, even taking it at face value, the story it tells is that (A) EK did not say anything about contacting the police and (B) EK did not say anything about contacting anyone about Phil's blog. And no evidence has yet been provided that whoever did do so (which there is no reason to believe is EK, even with your "evidence") told the police anything false or misleading. --Random832 (contribs) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, what someone says off-wiki, according to the ArbCom is, "generally not sanctionable." Second, Phil's insinuations that Everyking had anything at all to do with his run-in with the police are what we call a "poison pill", because there is no evidence that Everyking had anything to do with it. From what I understand, someone, unknown, had a legitimate concern about some statements that Phil had made on the web and felt concerned enough about it to call the authorities, who then did their job by looking into it. If Phil has a problem with his campus police, why doesn't he take it up with his school's administration? Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's some vague creepiness about some of the comments in that thread, especially from Brandt, but aren't we past the BADSITES hysteria where everybody gets into a tizzy over how people, blowing off steam offsite against an admin they have a problem with, sometimes hint at nasty stuff? That doesn't prove that everybody who so commented had any involvement in any actual real-life problems that developed. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this thread will get anywhere by trying to downplay the gravity of Everyking's past behavior. He has to earn our trust back. It was his free choice to consort with people who openly bear the most extreme malice towards Misplaced Pages and do not stop at actively trying to do real harm to real people. Those who defend the actions of these vermin, or Everyking's in associating with them, do not have the best interests of Misplaced Pages, or its editors, in mind. --TS 06:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, did you just say that anyone who defends Everyking does not have Misplaced Pages's best interests in mind? What a comment. Mackan79 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Tony has ever said anything productive in relation to an arbcom case - I don't know why people bother responding to him. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think my record on contributions to arbcom is pretty good. On my first case I even got a commendation from the committee for my contributions. On the last completed case in which I gave evidence (the so-called omnibus case), the findings of fact on some conduct issues were in reasonably close conformance to my evidence. So somebody is obviously taking notice. I wouldn't normally bang the drum, but since there are entire findings in some arbitration cases drawn verbatim from my drafts, I think your criticism is somewhat wide of the mark. --TS 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Mackan79, I said nothing of the sort. Please get your reading glasses and try again. I said that those who defend Everyking's actions in associating himself with those who bear extreme malice towards Misplaced Pages do not have the best interests of Misplaced Pages in mind. I'm looking at you. --TS 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, the problem with your comments, for what it's worth, is that you are addressing one type of abusive behavior with another type of abusive behavior, in this case aimed to deter open discussion of whether someone is really guilty of the sin of which you accuse them. Combine this with the vagueness of your accusation -- "Everyking's actions in associating himself with those who bear extreme malice towards Misplaced Pages" -- and the claim isn't just abusive but absurd. We aren't here to tell people who they can associate with, and if you haven't noticed, many people at the top of Misplaced Pages associate with the very same people. Perhaps this is partly a cultural thing, since in the U.S. freedom of association is a Constitutional right, and attacks on it are widely criticized as McCarthyism, but you have often seemed entirely oblivious that your approach is an attack on very widely held sensibilities. To say that anyone who defends someone for who he associates with "hates Misplaced Pages," in any case, is ridiculous. I apologize for addressing it, but it seemed better than accusing you of a personal attack.

As to Everyking's comments three years ago, your comment doesn't suggest that you read what I said below. However, I will point out that you are addressing an issue of negative consequences as if it were an issue of negative intent. It is fine to say that an action should be considered to violate policy without insisting with words like "vermin" and "extreme contempt" that offenders be castigated along with anyone who speaks up on their behalf. The latter is only divisive and for that matter completely ineffective in clarifying what people should or shouldn't do. It also fosters bad decision making, although in my experience that's rarely seen by those who speak like this since they rarely see the value in questioning their own views. Mackan79 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Commenting about this matter outside of the RfAr page itself is, I suppose, something of a gray area for me, and I'm not sure it's allowed. However, the suggestions made by Raul are sufficiently serious that I feel I must state, for the record, that I did not make any tipoff and did not even suggest going to the police, nor did I accuse Phil of doing anything illegal (in fact, I clearly stated at one point that I did not believe that the blog was anything other than fiction, and that I did not believe that any suggestions to the contrary should be taken seriously). Raul should be ashamed of himself for posting such a vicious smear, and it deeply concerns me that he remains a member of the ArbCom mailing list and may very well have influenced the discussion regarding my restriction with these baseless allegations. Everyking (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you suggest that someone should write to Phil's faculty about Phil's actions with respect to Misplaced Pages? In my view, that was where you appear to have overstepped the mark. You actively exhorted people to try to do harm to a Wikipedian, and you did so in a forum where you knew some people might take your suggestion seriously. --TS 06:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Baloney, Tony, and more baloney. Suggesting that someone should write to a university administration with their concerns, which Phil's university apparently felt were legitimate when they were notified about them, is not trying to do a Wikipedian harm. In fact, if there was a reason to be concerned then notifying the authorities could be of benefit in resolving whatever the situation was, to Phil's or whomever else's benefit. Although Everyking's venting in that thread was rather strong, remember that ArbCom said, "Off-wiki comments are generally unsanctionable." If you disagree with this statement, take it up with ArbCom. Trying to impose your own rules on Everyking or anyone else is not right. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. I notice that you have just again abused Misplaced Pages to launch a baseless personal attack on Phil. It is never right to engage in, or to defend, this kind of intimidation, and I really wish you would stop. --TS 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where this is at the moment, but my question for Everyking would be whether he sees the basic problem with calling for off-Misplaced Pages action in response to on-Misplaced Pages complaints. It seems to me that this could be more clearly stated, that regardless of how any person can justify it, if editors are free to escalate disputes to where they are bringing in other editors' personal lives, then Misplaced Pages dispute resolution becomes meaningless and a reasonable editing environment is lost. I'm not sure there's a perfect analogy, but it's a little like saying, "my coworker did such a bad job of editing my memo, someone should call his kids and tell them not to listen to him." Maybe he did, and maybe they shouldn't, but the coworker shouldn't make the phone call (or suggest that someone else do either) if they want to maintain a working relationship. The problem is that at least metaphorically, this type of act is a use of force, since it goes beyond arguing before a judge to something that harms the target regardless of who is right or wrong. I'm not sure if Everyking acknowledges this or not, but at least from what I can see that is the basic issue with his comments. Mackan79 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I see that as a problem. To be clear, Phil and I do not like each other at all and I do not think it would be prudent or productive for us to interact now or at any time in the future. As far as I'm concerned, a restriction on interaction is perfectly reasonable; I just think that it should either be a mutual restriction, so as not to unfairly stigmatize one party, or a private arrangement. Everyking (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad if you see the issue. I should say I basically agree with you, since I doubt that you gave much thought to your comments back in 2005 and I think you must be due a shot at being more careful some years later. Especially considering the whole issue here is about a welcoming editing environment, it seems also that a little more bilateral sensitivity to editors' concerns is a good thing. Just a couple of thoughts. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

While it's laudable to put dispute resolution first, and strongly require people to use it on wikipedia... it's not possible, nor wise, to insist that off-wiki actions must never be taken because it would weaken dispute resolution. Misplaced Pages does not exist in a vaccum, and neither does the Internet. Real world rules apply on the internet and on the wiki.

For instance, if someone where to disclose information on Misplaced Pages, covered by a real world NDA, the second party of the NDA would not be required to use Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution at all. It's not outlandish to imagine other such examples, for instance a school teacher who threatens bad grades on discovering someone he has a Misplaced Pages dispute with is in his class. It would be grossly inappropriate to demand use of on wiki Dispute Resolution in such a case.

So for that reason, while I support Dispute Resolution as the primary wikipedia process, I have to firmly reject the idea that there can "never" be a good reason for taking disputes off wiki. --Barberio (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR, but please recall the primary purpose of Dispute Resolution is to resolve disputes - if two users in conflict talk it out on or off wiki and suddenly things are resolved great!

The end product of Dispute resolution is not justice - its to eliminate problems. Doing things on-wiki as much as possible is a way to prevent further problems.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to judge if a case is valid for RARB

This is not meant to initiate a case, but only to see if this is a valid forum to take it to. There is a current impasse regarding the use of non-free images across part of the project, and the current opinion is equally split, and because this is NFC (thus imposed by the Foundation and our mission), there's no real good middle ground to compromise at. (it's all or nothing).

I know RARB doesn't handle content cases specifically, but I think we're at a point that we're going to be arguing to the end of the time about this unless we get some type of "official" decision. There is little "behavioral" issue here, so we're looking for more a findings of fact from the ArbCom to resolve this. Can this be brought to ArbCom (pending a write up and further acceptance of the committee) or is this inappropriate? --MASEM 04:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Arbcom has, IMO, already ruled on your question at Closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure. I suspect the issue isn't as clear as "all or nothing", since it seems this is an interpretation of a policy, even Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, differs with various interpretations of image policy , so there is quite a broad range of ground, akin to what is described in The_relationship_between_policy_and_consensus. Basically, it seems like you need to find an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion and decide how the community is interpreting whatever section of NFC is related to whatever content is under discussion at the RFC. But, I'm not an arb or a clerk, so this advice should be taken with a grain of salt. MBisanz 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if Misplaced Pages content is licensed under the GFDL and Wikia content is also licensed under the GFDL, I don't see why Misplaced Pages can't have "non-free" images while images on Wikia are considered fair use. --Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages policy and Wikia policy aren't aimed at the same goals. Wikia is less concerned with enabling repurposing of content than Misplaced Pages is. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (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)

Please create a sub-page for each request

Please create a sub-page for each request. That will make it easier to monitor the progress of a request via watchlist and 'history'. Lightmouse (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Regardless of the current problems with the article, I think we can all agree that Ayn Rand was an eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fail. Synergy 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Facepalm. BJ 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a typo for 22nd-century, right? --NE2 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not; anybody who wants what I would consider a more accurate description should contact me elsewhere. I'll agree on Russian-American, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is indisputable! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is ArbCom a reliable source?

It would be interesting to get the arbcom members' opinion on this question on RS noticeboard. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So the Arbcom knows, I will be asking for Arbitration Enforcement on this issue, as it is clearly disruptive and there is a massive point being made with this rubbish. However, I am off overseas tomorrow for a week, so I will be doing this when I return. --Russavia 06:59, 13 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 user 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)

(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)

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)

(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)