Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 6 July 2008

Please do not edit archived discussions.
Oct 2004 - Aug 2005 • Sep 2005 - Dec 2005 • Dec 2005 - Mar 2006 • Apr 2006 - May 2006 • Jun 2006 - Aug 2006 • Sep 2006 - Oct 2006 • Nov 2006 - Dec 2006 • Jan 2007 - Mar 2007 • Apr 2007 - May 2007 • Jun 2007 - Sep 2007 • Oct 2007 - Jan 2008 • Feb 2008 - Jun 2008 • Jul 2008 - Dec 2008 • Jan 2009 - Jan 2010 • Jan 2010 - Dec 2012

Motions and OM

Hi Stephen. I saw you were active (as of 5mins ago), so I was wondering, would you be able to vote on the two current motions at RfAr, as well as give your support or not your opposition to the Orangemarlin mentorship arrangement so it can be archived (see also the discussion at my talk, second section from the bottom)? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Misplaced Pages Weekly team, or the 'Not The Misplaced Pages Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up as available to engage 'on-wiki' a bit, Stephen - it's hugely appreciated, and I think could help enormously. The page has now been loosely integrated into the current 'RfC' about general arbcom stuff, though there I remain the only editor currently to have posted some brief questions. I think the page will probably develop a bit of a life of its own now, but will swing by here again to let you know as and when it's in a good state for you to be able to quickly engage there... once again thanks heaps... Privatemusings (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bizzaro World

If you have any desire for ArbCom decisions to be taken seriously, I hope you strongly reconsider voting to keep one user who flat out called another an "idiot" from being being disciplined by the community while at the same time voting to admonish another user for incivility for "implying" in a joke that someone is a conspiracy theorist. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure

Have you seen this? It's a concern that was raised earlier this year, which is why later cases omitted the term. I'm not sure why you didn't respond or change it accordingly.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did see that, and I was just looking into it. The wording with "trolling" included is quite an old one, it's the version that appears in our library of standard wordings. It seems Footnoted quotes was the first case not to use it (among recent cases CAMERA lobbying and Prem Rawat, for example, both used it). I do tend to agree that it is probably better without it. Strider12 was the case where this was first discussed? --bainer (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so - I didn't see it expressed in earlier cases. I was surprised it was still being used in ArbCom-decision-drafting, given that the number of times it's been brandished inappropriately is quite large one-example. This isn't helped by the WP:Troll page stating Note that some behavior listed here has been taken as disruption of Misplaced Pages in Arbitration Committee decisions - a point that I don't doubt will be wikilawyered in only a matter of time. Given it's really just a more narrow term for disruption, I think it's something worth changing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on proposed remedies

Looking at the proposed remedies section, can you tell me if I have this right:

In the remedies you've proposed and support, Geogre and William are barred from further blocks/unblocks of Giano (which any sane administrator in their position would refrain from anyway), I am admonished for making a comment that could be interpreted as an implied personal attack, and no remedy at all (or finding of fact, or principle) is directed at Giano - the remedy formerly directed at him would simply be made more difficult to enforce.

Is that an accurate summary? If so, can you perhaps explain your reasoning in more depth?

Separately - my comment was perhaps ill-advised, I freely admit. While others have described me as having some peculiar animus for Giano (a conclusion drawn, I suppose, from my one previous report to WP:AE regarding Giano and civility), my only object in that comment was to point out the obviously bad faith assumption being made in proposing that Durova wrote FT2's (as yet unreleased) statement. It should have been worded more artfully, of course. But given Giano's history, the previous arbitration case, and the role that many of the same folks involved in this case have played in past eruptions, I'm at a loss to understand how my comment can be seen as precipitating this dispute. Avruch 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)