Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:17, 20 February 2010 editBillinghurst (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators46,695 edits →Resignation of Fritzpoll: Enjoy← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:49, 24 January 2025 edit undoIvanvector (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators52,383 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed: cmt 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}} <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter}}{{ArbCom navigation}}
<!-- Archive date of 10 days has been agreed amongst arbitrators and clerks. Do not change without discussion. -->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 500k
|counter = 10
|algo = old(4d) |counter = 52
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
'''Behaviour on this page:''' This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.


__TOC__
= Discussion of agenda =
== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==
] (please use a header for each new discussion section here)
: ]<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

*Good! I'm glad that you did this. --] (]) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
= Discussion of announcements =
*I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. {{pb}} I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as ] by {{U|Daniel}}, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

*:Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point ({{tqq|1=Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters}}), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) {{pb}} When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Appeal to BASC: Offliner ==
== EncycloDeterminate unblocked ==

:] <!-- ~~~~ --> : ]<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
== ] closed ==

: ]<!-- ] (]) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
I trust that Offliner's block and appeal had nothing to do with off-Wiki activities against my person and others as the result of the EEML case on WP. All I have to say on the topic. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;">&nbsp;] ►]&nbsp;</small> 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*Broadly agree with all of the topic bans + suspended site ban, though would’ve liked to see more meat and potatoes in terms of remedies to ensure future TBANs aren’t necessary (ex. the article titles remedy or even something wholly experimental like the Levant Subcommittee, though I understand why they didn’t pass). The balanced editing restriction is a good start.

:Overall, while I’m not confident this will fully solve the area’s many issues, I do think this is overall a good moment for the topic area in terms of lowering temperatures/ensuring adherence to ], and I sincerely hope it does that; I’m also encouraged by the de facto further endorsement to ]. Thanks to the arbs for taking on this absolute juggernaut of a case. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Do bans include activity as an anonymous IP, as ?
*I thank the Committee for coming to what I think is the right decision. It felt like pulling teeth, with the incredibly lengthy period before the case was accepted, and the further time before the parties list was finalized, and finally with the PD votes that went through second-guessing, but I believe that it came out correctly in the end. I imagine it's always difficult for Arbs to balance, on the one hand, wanting to be responsive to community input, even when there are competing and opposite views being expressed, and on the other hand, wanting to make an independent and objective conclusion, without bowing to undue pressure. So this was a hard case. But I hope that, going forward, "being right isn't enough" will be an accepted part of Misplaced Pages editing culture. --] (]) 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I personally believe these are one and the same editor but have no appetite for filing checkuser and formal enforcement requests. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;">&nbsp;] ►]&nbsp;</small> 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
*:I hope it's OK for me to ask this here. Nishidani has been keeping a running commentary on the topic and on the case on his user talk page, and it includes some pot shots at me. Given the TBAN as well as ], could all of that be removed? It wouldn't feel right for me to do it myself, but maybe an Arb, Clerk, or uninvolved admin, could do it. --] (]) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

*I wonder how much impact the new balanced editing restriction will have. BEANS 'n' all, but to me it seems rather easy to make a large volume of gnomish or minor edits to defeat the 'balanced editing' clause. Granted, there are still other tools to restrict editors. It's perhaps the messiest topic area on Misplaced Pages. I'm happy about the first bullet though ({{green|All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.}}, though the proposal a while ago for pending ECP would be ideal. ''']]''' 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
== Statement on the block of Roux ==
*:What I'm curious about is why the committee invented a new restriction but did not use it themselves. To me that suggests they're not very confident about its usefulness. ] (]) 01:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

*::I'm hopeful about the restriction, and I hope to see confident application in the future. I think it's a good idea that might be used to encourage highly-motivated editors to take a crack at the backlog and thus better integrate into the Wiki community. ] (]) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:]
*:::Some of the most effective strategies for POV pushing in the PIA topic area can be found by examining the behavior of highly-motivated partisan ban evading actors. They make on average about 20% of their revisions in the topic area. So, they have already discovered that a self-imposed balanced editing restriction can help them fly under the radar, at least for a while, delay detection, reduce the likelihood of being reported at AE and facing sanctions etc. ] (]) 05:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you mean that Roux called the admin "an obscenity", or that he called the admin "a ''''"? <font color="#FFB911">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*::{{ping|LokiTheLiar}} They did the same thing in ]<sup>(expand the collapsible)</sup>, and the reason for this is because these restrictions are intended to be used as ''discretionary sanctions''; i.e. something admins can use in contentious topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 06:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:The latter. ] '']'' 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*Thanks to the arbs for taking on this case - I've already started watching some PIA-related pages that I had stopped due to the toxicity, and I'm hopeful that I won't have to un-watch them again. I still am, bluntly, shocked that only two arbitrators noticed the fact that the BM FoF as passed contains blatantly false accusations (misrepresentation of sources) and voted against it - but I don't necessarily disagree with the final outcome of that FoF. I would encourage arbitrators to ensure they review evidence entirely and ensure that accusations labeled as "facts" about parties are actually supported by the evidence. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to defend themselves on the evidence/workshop page if the evidence itself is blatantly inaccurate to begin with - we should be able to trust that arbitrators reviewed the evidence so we don't have to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is why we need incivility defining - was it a gross obscenity, minor obscenity, general obscenity or just something regarded as obscene by a few in the American bible belt? I don't care if he stays blocked for ever or a few minutes, but just saying an admin has been called an obscenity in a private email is not good enough. The time has come when we need a list of forbidden words, so that if we are told "someone is banned for obscenity" we at least know they have been pretty vile and incivil. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*How is this going to improve the topic area? I agree that some behavior wasn't great, but also banning some of the most knowledgeable and productive editors is not how we improve the encyclopedia for our readers, which needs to be the #1 priority. I'm disappointed that Arbcom could not find a less disruptive way to deal with the situation. (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 06:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Actually, I strongly disagree with actually having a list. While I'm not likely to write "You fucker. :-)" in a WP discussion, the odds are good that I would mean it in a humorous way, meaning that someone just scored on me bigtime and I didn't have a good comeback. However, if "fucker" was added to a list, as you suggest above, tone of font/intent wouldn't matter, and I'd be blocked.--] (]) 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*:I mean, ultimately, ArbCom has a limited toolkit, whose most most impactful elements ''mostly'' consist of different varieties of banhammers - it's inevitable that a case like this will largely result in topic-bans and that other aspects of it would be harder to address. I think that one thing to do might be to go over some of the ideas that ArbCom wasn't able to follow up on due to coming too close to dictating content, and put them in front of the community; at the very least we can do something about the ] / ] issues. (One thing I regret not following up on in the evidence phase is looking at who's creating all these forks - since I didn't do so I'm not sure what I'd find, but I ''suspect'' that there are problematic editors there who avoided scrutiny because they rarely stayed and got into visible fights over the forks they created. It might be worth investigating and taking that to ], since this case clearly identified it as a problem to be solved.) As far as ] / ] issues and the need for experienced editors goes, though, the only real solution is to urge the community to put more eyes on the topic. I wouldn't have supported every single topic-ban myself, but ArbCom (and many of the comments) are right in that we can't really use "we need this person tho" as an excuse for actual misconduct - if a few experienced editors were carrying all the weight then we need more people there, and that'd be true whether they got topic-banned or not. --] (]) 13:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::It is usually pretty obvious when someone is joking, I have sen one editor call another a "cocksucker" in anger and Admins saying it was not incivil enough to block for. We need some defining rules. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*::The POVFORK/POVTITLE issue should definitely be looked at by the community. I think the biggest fix we need unrelated to the socking and coordination is a better enforcement mechanism for , but there's not a lot of good ideas left. I saw that last night and wondered if maybe just blocking everyone involved from the article or full protecting for a month would get the point across. ] (]) 13:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
While I thank CHL for adding trustworthy useful context in an ongoing conflcit, the choice of the Committee to comment on this matter is a little bemusing. If they thought it worthy of our attention, the admin could have disclosed the issue publicly without fear of contradiction. I understand that in the case of urgency or privacy ArbCom justifiably makes statements or takes action outside of a case, but the inclination to become involved in routine block proceedings is worrisome. You have more than enough on your plates already, there is no need to issue proclamations on high on issues the community can deal with tractably. ] 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*:::I don't think we need ''new'' enforcement mechanisms for this, we should just use the ones we have. My usual approach is to full protect for a few days to give everyone a chance to start talking, and if anyone reverts after that protection expires then I answer with blocks. I also rely pretty heavily on Arbcom's direction to treat users behaving similarly , so ] editors are ] by directive, and if they're teaming up ] then all of them are in violation and can be blocked. Maybe the current committee should comment on that, I'm sure I'm deviating from the intended scope of that case and it's a 20-year-old directive now anyway. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not our choice. Ryan announced that he strengthened the block on the basis of the email, but did not describe the email. We felt that by summarizing the problem Ryan found with the email, the community would be able to make an informed decision about how to handle the user. We prefer that it be handled by normal means. Personally, I believe that such incidents should be handled precisely as you describe, and I hope that this statement is a strong hint in that direction. ] '']'' 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::The confirmation on the talk page would have been enough in my opinion, making an announcement here brings undue (and undesirable ?) light to the issue. ] (]) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC) *Disclaimer: I have not followed the case. Nor have I now read the case. So forgive me if the answer to my question is apparent to someone less lazy than I: what does the SPI remedy have to do with P-I? Thanks.--] (]) 14:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I proposed it because we had ] that third-party participation in PIA SPIs was not helpful and made cases harder to manage. It's a compromise measure that's meant to codify existing authorities, rather than creating something new, because it didn't seem like that would get enough support. ] (]) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You may be right. ] '']'' 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*::Why wasn't it restricted to P-I cases/reports?--] (]) 14:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay, I see where you are coming from, but as a matter of best practice (so as to discourage the inclination to bring every little fracas straight from ANI to ArbCom) it might be best to make such disclosures at the normal forums as an editor who happens to have something privileged to contribute to the discussion, rather than an announcement from the Committee at large.
*:::The remedy is encouragement and not an actual restriction (clerks already have the power to effectively topic-ban people from SPI), so I think that if the remedy was limited to just Palestine–Israel, it might have been misinterpreted as saying that clerks don't have that power elsewhere or that the Committee doesn't have their back elsewhere. There are also issues with defining what a PIA SPI is, though there are (of course) quite a few socks that operate primarily in the area. It's a bit difficult to cordon off the area in terms of SPI. ] (]) 14:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::As for the incident itself, if the rationale for block was in doubt, it is up to the blocking admin to give a convincing explanation to the community. If they felt no compunctions about forwarding or revealing details to arbitrators there is no reason they could not have done likewise to another trusted editor for confirmation, just how privacy-sensitive issues are handled (and handled well) at RfA.

::::On the whole, not a big deal, but the way small issues are handled creates expectations about future. Thank you Cool Hand Luke for your clear and prompt responses. ] 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Believe me, I'm with you; I would not post at AC/N for this kind of matter in the future, and I accept responsibility for it happening. ] '']'' 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

::::::No worries whatsoever. There is no harm done here and this isn't an area with established norms so you can hardly be faulted for anything. Good to clarify things going forward. Thanks again, ] 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How was the comittee able to confirm what they were sent was geniune, exactly? Not that I doubt the honesty of RP at all, but when I do doubt the honest of someone in the future, I'll have this to point at as evidence of my even-handed behavior. ] (]) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::How is the community supposed to make an informed decision without any information. we are told obscene - obscene by whose defiition? <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I guess the arbitration office doesn't like its clerks feeling battered, so gave the incident more attention? ] (]) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::Honestly, they're comparable to statements he made on his talk page. The main point of this announcement is that the email did ''not'' contain a legal or other threat. ] '']'' 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't get it...why isn't the main point explicitly made in the announcement? ] (]) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::::It is. "The block may be reviewed by the community in ordinary fashion." There's not much to add here. ] '']'' 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::AFAIK, the community has always reviewed such blocks in an ordinary fashion; even where legal threats are present. What I was asking was...why didn't the announcement plainly say "The email did not contain any threat"? ] (]) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::It's easier to describe what something ''is'' than what it isn't. This is more detail than the community had before, and we have decided that it is sufficient detail to evaluate the case. ] '']'' 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Well, realistically speaking, the only additional information that we are given in the announcement is that ArbCom received whatever it was Ryan forwarded. In reality, what that notice should've explicitly specified is the additional information that you've supplied on this cluttered talk page (about no threats being present), but even then, it would've been reviewed in an ordinary fashion without ArbCom's intervention. But if the announcement attracts more attention to Roux's appeal, I guess that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Thank you for your answers. :) ] (]) 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::We are not intervening nor do we intend to intervene; that's the whole point. I apologize for posting this on AC/N, which I now see was misleading. You're welcome. ] '']'' 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I forwarded the email to the Arbitration Committee was because I added an "email block" onto the original block because of the email I received (and I was the original blocker). As I'm not allowed to post what he said on-wiki, or show it to anyone else for that matter, I sent it to the Arbitration Committee just in case anyone had a problem with it. For what it's worth, I didn't expect an announcement or anything - I was just covering my own back. I certainly wasn't attempting to strengthen my own position by involving ArbCom - I only sent them the email in case anyone had a problem with me adding the email block after being the original blocker. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 17:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:That's understandable, and it seems as if there is not much in the way of conventions in these matters. Perhaps it would be better to forward such emails to the functionaries list rather than the arbitration list as standard? Thoughts welcome. ] 17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

*This incivility business is getting ludicrous, blocks left, right and centre for whatever is considered incivil at the moment. I don't doubt he hs been truly invivil (if you say so) but there are other Admins where I would seriously doubt it - this all needs sorting and defining. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*:The problem with trying to give a set definition for what is, or is not, offensive language is that any such definition is sensitive to context and cultural norms. My own standard is probably on the conservative side: if one uses language that, in an typical office workplace context, would lead to sanctions or dismissal then the line has definitely been crossed. I know from experience that the level of language in (say) a garage is different, but I'm pretty sure that nobody who would causally use such strong language in that context would be unaware that the same language would be inappropriate at the post office.<p>What confuses me about the issue is how that minimal level of courtesy can ''possibly'' be viewed as unreasonable. Yes, it ''is'' possible to offensive using a perfectly courteous level of language; but there is no reason to tolerate ''either''. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::However, we don't all come from the same cultural environment or visit the same post office. Therefore, we need definitive guidelines. <small><span style="border:1px solid Blue;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:: Agree with Giano. In the environment I work in, it's far more offensive to tell someone they are lying than to tell someone they are a f****** a******. Perhaps we should translate that here.] (]) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I do not doubt, however, that regardless of the environment you work in, you are ''aware'' that this level of language would not be considered acceptable in most environments. And, regardless of whether you knew of it in advance or not, persisting when told that it is inappropriate lacks basic civility. I don't think anyone is seriously considering making a list of "bad words" that will get you in trouble by simple utterance; what is a problem is habitual and repeated offensive language despite being warned off.<p>And yes, calling someone a liar is ''also'' problematic though our guidelines here have chosen to separate that from simple language issues (NPA vs CIVIL); but it's just as important to maintain decorum as it is to maintain respect. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::::'''re: lie''' (characterizing statements vs characterizing persons) &mdash; Obama's ''"A lie, plain and simple."'' and Wilson's rejoinder ''"You lie!"'' ... illustrate a significant (or trivial:) rhetorical issue (distinction). From my (rhetorical analyst) perspective, usually the problem is '''"bullshit"''' (mixtures of mis-emphasized fact laced with traces of pure crap) ... and while I never find it useful to call someone a name, there are times it is clearly appropriate to call "bullshit" on misrepresentations. ''(Aside: For those wondering why Joe Biden was selected as Vice President, note that he publicly called "bullshit" on some of Bush's comments &mdash; before quickly restating it as the highly unsatisfying "malarkey.")'' <p>But to focus this comment toward "solution" ... Misplaced Pages exists amidst a public culture of totality of spin (or, as the late George Carlin once phrased it: "A Tyranny of Bullshit") &mdash; but our educations are not rhetorical, so we do not have the analytical language for bullshit control. But one thing I can assure you, is that outlawing the word "bullshit" is NOT the solution to bullshit control. (smiling but not joking) ''See also .'' -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

*FYI: ] is being drafted as a proposed guideline to address some of the concerns expressed in this thread. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
*:Thanks for that link. Just a passing comment from me to say that I find the use of certain abbreviations to be incivil even though the phrases in question are not being typed in full. For example, when someone says "FFS", the level of exasperation is clear, but the offence possibly caused is no less than if the phrase had been typed out in full. Ditto when people talk about a "load of BS" or (moving away from abbreviations to circumlocutions) "horse excrement" (or even cleverer ways to say what you mean, but using different and "OK" words). It's just a way of swearing while trying to appear not to be doing that. Which is silly. ] (]) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
**: I can only laugh at the attempts to codify incivility. What about "Don't be a fucktard / idiot / dick!" and similar imperatives that don't directly call someone names, but caution (really?) one against acting like said villain. I've seen these used often enough on ANI, by administrators. What about qualifying an action as "that's trolling / idiocy / insanity!"; isn't the implication obvious? What about sarcasm like "only a genius would say that!", with the obvious implication of the contrary? The attempts to codify incivility remind me of ], which had similar troubles stemming the expression of forbidden ideas, often enough circumvented by creative writers using new metaphors. If I'm allowed to quote from the master himself, on the talk page discussing civility blocks themselves (the irony), are the following sentences civil or not? "They have blocked in a bullying, gratuitous and vile fashion. Sooner or later rules will be imposed to curb their disgraceful and overpowering behaviour." If I'm allowed to roughly quote from my user page, what level of name epithets is uncivil: "reference nazi", "totally irresponsible", "part of the problem", "a bit of a bully"? (Others have more extensive quote farms, e.g. ] -- he even bothers with diffs.) I'm taking bets. ] ] 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2 ==

:]

* I'm quite glad that this one came up so early in the new ArbComs term, if only to prove that that the new tranche is equally as fucking clueless as the previous ones. Thanks for the heads up, everyone. ] (]) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*This is beyond the pale. ] (]) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*Seems like a correct and proper decision. Administrators shouldn't be facilitating breaching experiments by banned users. IAR isn't enough of a fig leaf to cover that up. -- ] (]) 02:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*:And all they get for it is a bad puppy? Yeah. Don't disrupt[REDACTED] or we'll tell you what a bad boy you are..and really do nothing else..--] (]) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*::Before the case was filed, MZMcBride had the sysop flag. Now the case has closed and MZMcBride must undergo an RfA to get that flag. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*:::Which he gave up himself. Arbcom imposed no further penalties except "Oohh you... don't do that again!" *imagine a shaking finger* Sorry. Someone abuses tool server, the communities trust, etc. I'd expect a little more.--] (]) 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
*::::What would you have them do? Arbcom can't take away his toolserver access, it falls outside of en.wikipedia arbcom's jurisdiction. If you want him banned, take it to the ]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 07:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
General comment: Feedback on our decisions is welcome both before and after they are issued. However, in general, input on how exceedingly clueless a decision allegedly is, whether because it is allegedly too harsh or because it is allegedly too lenient or for no specified reason at all, will generally be more useful to the arbitrators (and more likely to influence the result) if provided while the case is still pending rather than after it has closed. ] (]) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:Speaking as someone who chronicles ArbCom cases, I (and I assume most of the rest of us commenting here) appear to be under a seemingly-mistaken impression that the only place we can really say such stuff is after the case on this page, not during it on any pages related to the case unless we're already in it. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 04:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::You are free to comment on the request, evidence, workshop and proposed decision talk pages of any case at any time. Reasoned arguments, backed with facts, are always welcome :) &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:Lol Brad. ]] 05:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::Surely you mean: Brad and Roger are absolutely correct? :-) They are, of course, quite right. Some cases do suffer because they lack uninvolved people taking the time to dive in and sort through the evidence and give their opinions. Calm input from a wide range of people during the case is helpful. Post-case disagreement or agreement is still helpful, but less so. The bit at the top of this page is worth reading again: ''"This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices."'' The discussions that tend to be most helpful here are the ones that look forward, and try and work out what is needed next, and where to start new discussions based on the issues raised and (hopefully) resolved by the case, including issues left unresolved for the community to resolve. I would suggest a discussion at ]. ] (]) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The problem is that, with most of these cases, there's a jagd mentality because the subject matter of the area that the behavior's occurring in is the type of stuff most uninvolved editors don't want to involve themselves in because the main participants in that area do not believe in the word "]". Thus, to even discuss the case and not take a side is to be attacked by the partisans - at least, that is the general feeling. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 06:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::::That is an extremely valid point, which can be addressed by more vigorously policing the arbitration pages. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::But that only solves issues that arise on the Arbitration pages, not anything that winds up on user talkpages or, Lord forbid, a ] or similar starchamber. What can be criticized as badgering on an Arbitration page can't be considered the same on a user page unless the user requests the badgerers slot off. It's less that the ArbCom is ] and more that (and these aren't mutually exclusive) (a) most users are unwilling to expose themselves to the type of Hatfield/McCoy mentality that's a hallmark of most ArbCom cases and (b) these same users think (especially with more recent decisions) that the ArbCom is being incredibly mercurial, at some parts banning users who they feel should not have been banned ('']'') or slapping users on the wrist for doing things practically any other user would be indef'd, if not community-banned, for ('']'') . —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 10:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::In my experience, people respond to uninvolved commentators in kind. If you don't approach it like a Hatfield, very few people will respond like a McCoy.--<i><font color="#9966FF">]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::That holds less true at arbitration than elsewhere. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I came here to quickly browse through the comments out of a bit of morbid/bored fascination (the opening ceremonies are kind of boring...), but I feel impelled to reply after reading most of this sub-thread. I just wanted to state that, misconceptions and all, I completely agree with Jeremy's stated views here. I'm happy to see that many of us seem to have been mistaken, in that third party comments on an open case are actually encouraged. You may want to publicize that outside of the ArbCom space here, because I can fairly confidently state that comments on open cases being encouraged is largely unknown (although I don't have statistics to back that up or anything...). Not that myself and others will suddenly start commenting, for the reasons already expressed above, since the concerns about actually interjecting comments during a case most likely ''will'' override even with "permission", but it's still good to know.<br/>—&nbsp;] (]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;]) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Unfortunately--and my opinion isn't exactly a neutral one--it's hard to remember a recent arbitration case in which that laudable ideal has ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeek. And this case isn't about an ethnic or ideological struggle. I'm unsure as to what Ncmvocalist said to warrant such a response from Ryan, could someone enlighten me? —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have commented on the case, Mr Z.man commented, on the bias in the findings w.r.t. MZMcBride's use of his toolserver access, and we've been completely ignored by the arbitrators active on the case. The case has been closed in no more than 23 days, that's very fast for an arbitration case. There were still many users commenting in the workshop when arbs decided to go on the proposed decision page and ignore new input. Useless to comment when you're ignored. ] (]) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:This is, of course, a no-win situation for Arbcom. Keep cases open, and we're dallying; close them in a timely way, and we're not listening to input. Of the two, I believe that closing in a timely way is healthier for the encyclopedia and for the parties. The facts of this case were laid out very early on; there were proposals on the workshop page for more than a week. The opinions of commenters w.r.t. the toolserver issue were not ignored, as far as I can tell; when the Arbitration Committee does not make the decision you prefer, I would hope you assume good faith that it is because the Committee as a whole (or individual arbitrators, as reflected by their personal votes) does not agree with you, rather than that it failed to consider your position. I say this as someone who has the responsibility to vote on cases; sometimes my colleagues will agree with me, and sometimes they won't, but my responsibility is to vote according to the way in which I perceive the facts. ] (]) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::Well, the remedies in question didn't pass so it's not that much the decisions I'm concerned with; some arbitrators may have listen and it may have influenced their vote, though they didn't actually respond. But the findings of facts are still biased and so give a false impression to readers, which is not negligible. This is in part why I feel we need a system where some users make the accusation, some others defend, and then 'judges' make the final ruling (imo simple, feasible and fair enough); instead of a system where arbitrators charge then rule. But this is a question that can't be resolved here so I won't continue on this. Thanks for the reply. ] (]) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::*Interesting points, Cenarium. I suppose, thinking about it, that ArbCom operates a hybrid system, based on ] and ] elements. The latter is widely used especially in tribunals, which is probably closer to what ArbCom actually is (even though it is sometimes mischaracterised as a Supreme Court). In ArbCom proceedings, the preliminary stages are adversarial, with the two (or more) sides advancing arguments which are weighed by the arbitrators. The arbitration itself is non-adversarial. This probably goes a long way to reduce drama as a formal prosecution/defence process would be much more polarising. It would, for example, create winning and losing camps, which we don't have the moment, and is likely to encourage "big accusations" if the discussion gets heated.<p>The next question I suppose is how much weight should arbitrators place on comments by editors not named as parties. My take is that it depends on what the editor brings to the table, which is itself a difficult question. Often, comments are made by people whose evidence speaks only or largely to character, which again is has a polarising effect. By contrast, dispassionate analysis of the actual evidence is exceedingly useful. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
::::*I wanted to reply but got distracted and my reply was getting longer and longer... I won't have time to complete it in the following days. I think I'll write an essay or something and link to it when finished. ] (]) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
:Frankly, in my opinion, this case should have never been opened at all. MZMcBride's loss of the bit should have been confirmed via motion, and everyone would have been better off. Open cases toll a lot of contributors, and I'm glad this one closed relatively quickly. ] '']'' 00:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
::Yes, you're probably right. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 08:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:::There were no need to open it in the first place, yes; the incident was blown out of proportion. ] (]) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's much of my business, but I wonder why there was no motion to temporarily block or ban Mz? What he did was extremely bad. Does the Arbitration Committee wish this aspect to be considered by the community? ] (]) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

== Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (3) ==

:]<!-- ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) -->
The diff on the second part of it, at least according to my popups, points to an earlier motion on the same case regarding Piotrus, rather than the actual passed motion here. —<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
::You didn't scroll down far enough. Better yet, click on it. ] (]) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

== Appeal to BASC: WVBluefield ==

:]<!-- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) -->

== Resignation of Fritzpoll ==

:''']'''

Well that sucks. --]|] 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
:That is exactly what I said. ] (]) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your volunteer work on Misplaced Pages. Best wishes for you in your new endeavors. ]] 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)<br>
The reason for this resignation is not announced. This is too early resignation<s>looks irresponsible.</s><small>refactored per the angry responses, but which still puzzles me greatly. 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)</small>--] 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not even going to dignify that comment with a response. ]‑] 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Precisely, per HM. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Agreed. ] (]) 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::C'mon, I voted for him. However, this announcement for the sudden resignation without "any reason" is disappointing. He only has served for ArbCom for one and half month.--] 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::: May I gently suggest that claiming people are irresponsible with zero knowledge, ]. You have no idea really. Suppose he had someone seriously sick or in difficulty in the family and didn't wish to be public about it, or a major change of work or study. Suppose the workload is greater than non-Arbs know (which it is). I am sure he too is sad and reflected deeply on the decision. You rate him, you trust him, you don't know anything to the contrary, consider assuming it's a responsible decision and offering support. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Agree that this is extremely discouraging and comes at a bad time. I am speaking for myself and for what I see is happening on Misplaced Pages. Purely a personal sense of futility and disappointment. —] (]) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Aye, you'll be missed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
* This really ''does'' suck :( Sorry to see you go ... - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
* Enjoy life outside the madhouse! Take it slowly if your head spins. ] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">]</span>'' 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

== Ban Appeal Subcommittee membership ==

:] <!-- &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 07:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) -->

Latest revision as of 14:49, 24 January 2025

Shortcuts
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

Original announcement
  • Good! I'm glad that you did this. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I'd like to thank the Committee for its action here. The Committee's workflow challenges have long been a substantial concern and this could be a meaningful step in addressing them. When the Committee appoints the coordinating arbitrator(s), I would ask that the Committee announce who those arbitrators are; I think it would help the community (e.g., at ACE) to know who might be spending extra time on coordination efforts and may have less time for other arbitrator tasks. I also appreciate arbitrator comments such as this one by Daniel, which suggest that if this motion is eventually seen as insufficient, the Committee will reconsider Motion 1. I certainly hope that the Committee will continue actively exploring ways to deliver workflow improvements that help arbs increase capacity and spend time resolving substantive issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as the author of the language in this motion, let me make one suggestion as to implementation. In executing the first bullet point (Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters), I strongly urge the coordinating arbitrator to assign an ID to each non-spam communication, akin to the ticket number in a VRTS thread. (Whether and how to group related threads or emails together is a question on which I'll defer.) When I was on the committee, many of the balls we dropped had not gotten to the voting stage or even the "this is a problem we've decided to deal with" stage. Instead, they were stray emails that requested or alerted the committee to possible action that were then not followed up upon. Assigning identifiers allows the coordinating arbitrators to say not only "Votes are needed on matters X, Y, and Z" (on which there is already a proposed action or vote), but also "Threads 101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 need triage and initial action." in the tracking function. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

EncycloDeterminate unblocked

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Original announcement
  • Broadly agree with all of the topic bans + suspended site ban, though would’ve liked to see more meat and potatoes in terms of remedies to ensure future TBANs aren’t necessary (ex. the article titles remedy or even something wholly experimental like the Levant Subcommittee, though I understand why they didn’t pass). The balanced editing restriction is a good start.
Overall, while I’m not confident this will fully solve the area’s many issues, I do think this is overall a good moment for the topic area in terms of lowering temperatures/ensuring adherence to WP:CIVIL, and I sincerely hope it does that; I’m also encouraged by the de facto further endorsement to WP:BRIE. Thanks to the arbs for taking on this absolute juggernaut of a case. The Kip 00:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I thank the Committee for coming to what I think is the right decision. It felt like pulling teeth, with the incredibly lengthy period before the case was accepted, and the further time before the parties list was finalized, and finally with the PD votes that went through second-guessing, but I believe that it came out correctly in the end. I imagine it's always difficult for Arbs to balance, on the one hand, wanting to be responsive to community input, even when there are competing and opposite views being expressed, and on the other hand, wanting to make an independent and objective conclusion, without bowing to undue pressure. So this was a hard case. But I hope that, going forward, "being right isn't enough" will be an accepted part of Misplaced Pages editing culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hope it's OK for me to ask this here. Nishidani has been keeping a running commentary on the topic and on the case on his user talk page, and it includes some pot shots at me. Given the TBAN as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST, could all of that be removed? It wouldn't feel right for me to do it myself, but maybe an Arb, Clerk, or uninvolved admin, could do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I wonder how much impact the new balanced editing restriction will have. BEANS 'n' all, but to me it seems rather easy to make a large volume of gnomish or minor edits to defeat the 'balanced editing' clause. Granted, there are still other tools to restrict editors. It's perhaps the messiest topic area on Misplaced Pages. I'm happy about the first bullet though (All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article., though the proposal a while ago for pending ECP would be ideal. JayCubby 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    What I'm curious about is why the committee invented a new restriction but did not use it themselves. To me that suggests they're not very confident about its usefulness. Loki (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm hopeful about the restriction, and I hope to see confident application in the future. I think it's a good idea that might be used to encourage highly-motivated editors to take a crack at the backlog and thus better integrate into the Wiki community. Scharb (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some of the most effective strategies for POV pushing in the PIA topic area can be found by examining the behavior of highly-motivated partisan ban evading actors. They make on average about 20% of their revisions in the topic area. So, they have already discovered that a self-imposed balanced editing restriction can help them fly under the radar, at least for a while, delay detection, reduce the likelihood of being reported at AE and facing sanctions etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    @LokiTheLiar: They did the same thing in APL, and the reason for this is because these restrictions are intended to be used as discretionary sanctions; i.e. something admins can use in contentious topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 06:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks to the arbs for taking on this case - I've already started watching some PIA-related pages that I had stopped due to the toxicity, and I'm hopeful that I won't have to un-watch them again. I still am, bluntly, shocked that only two arbitrators noticed the fact that the BM FoF as passed contains blatantly false accusations (misrepresentation of sources) and voted against it - but I don't necessarily disagree with the final outcome of that FoF. I would encourage arbitrators to ensure they review evidence entirely and ensure that accusations labeled as "facts" about parties are actually supported by the evidence. It shouldn't be necessary for someone to defend themselves on the evidence/workshop page if the evidence itself is blatantly inaccurate to begin with - we should be able to trust that arbitrators reviewed the evidence so we don't have to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • How is this going to improve the topic area? I agree that some behavior wasn't great, but also banning some of the most knowledgeable and productive editors is not how we improve the encyclopedia for our readers, which needs to be the #1 priority. I'm disappointed that Arbcom could not find a less disruptive way to deal with the situation. (t · c) buidhe 06:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I mean, ultimately, ArbCom has a limited toolkit, whose most most impactful elements mostly consist of different varieties of banhammers - it's inevitable that a case like this will largely result in topic-bans and that other aspects of it would be harder to address. I think that one thing to do might be to go over some of the ideas that ArbCom wasn't able to follow up on due to coming too close to dictating content, and put them in front of the community; at the very least we can do something about the WP:POVFORK / WP:POVTITLE issues. (One thing I regret not following up on in the evidence phase is looking at who's creating all these forks - since I didn't do so I'm not sure what I'd find, but I suspect that there are problematic editors there who avoided scrutiny because they rarely stayed and got into visible fights over the forks they created. It might be worth investigating and taking that to WP:AE, since this case clearly identified it as a problem to be solved.) As far as WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT issues and the need for experienced editors goes, though, the only real solution is to urge the community to put more eyes on the topic. I wouldn't have supported every single topic-ban myself, but ArbCom (and many of the comments) are right in that we can't really use "we need this person tho" as an excuse for actual misconduct - if a few experienced editors were carrying all the weight then we need more people there, and that'd be true whether they got topic-banned or not. --Aquillion (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    The POVFORK/POVTITLE issue should definitely be looked at by the community. I think the biggest fix we need unrelated to the socking and coordination is a better enforcement mechanism for multi party edit wars, but there's not a lot of good ideas left. I saw that last night and wondered if maybe just blocking everyone involved from the article or full protecting for a month would get the point across. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think we need new enforcement mechanisms for this, we should just use the ones we have. My usual approach is to full protect for a few days to give everyone a chance to start talking, and if anyone reverts after that protection expires then I answer with blocks. I also rely pretty heavily on Arbcom's direction to treat users behaving similarly as the same user for dispute resolution purposes, so tag-teaming editors are meatpuppets by directive, and if they're teaming up to avoid xRR then all of them are in violation and can be blocked. Maybe the current committee should comment on that, I'm sure I'm deviating from the intended scope of that case and it's a 20-year-old directive now anyway. Ivanvector (/Edits) 14:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer: I have not followed the case. Nor have I now read the case. So forgive me if the answer to my question is apparent to someone less lazy than I: what does the SPI remedy have to do with P-I? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I proposed it because we had a finding that third-party participation in PIA SPIs was not helpful and made cases harder to manage. It's a compromise measure that's meant to codify existing authorities, rather than creating something new, because it didn't seem like that would get enough support. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why wasn't it restricted to P-I cases/reports?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    The remedy is encouragement and not an actual restriction (clerks already have the power to effectively topic-ban people from SPI), so I think that if the remedy was limited to just Palestine–Israel, it might have been misinterpreted as saying that clerks don't have that power elsewhere or that the Committee doesn't have their back elsewhere. There are also issues with defining what a PIA SPI is, though there are (of course) quite a few socks that operate primarily in the area. It's a bit difficult to cordon off the area in terms of SPI. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic