Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilkTork (talk | contribs) at 00:07, 22 January 2013 (→BASC: Asgardian appeal: commenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Announcement

Interestingly enough, the 3 closers were all recent ArbCom candidates - 2 of them got over 50% support; the other is the non-admin Pgallert. Is there any reason for these 3 specific candidates, and not the others? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a coincidence. AGK's comment in the motion voting goes into more detail as to how they were chosen, but the short of it is that we simply tossed around names on the mailing list as to who we would feel comfortable with and the final list happened to be composed of candidates from ACE2012. I wouldn't be averse to trying a new system for this in the future, such as people nominating themselves to be called for the task well ahead of time, but that would be predicated on, well, people actually being willing to do so. NW (Talk) 12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking personally and based on my experience over time, I believe that administrators and other editors who have actively demonstrated an interest in dispute resolution and/or the Arbitration Committee are a good fit for tasks such as this. It can also help those editors to decide if they are interested in taking a more active role in dispute resolution (as an arbitration enforcement administrator, a mediator or even an arbitrator). In the case of these three, they demonstrated their interest in the recent Arbcom elections. Risker (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a coincidence, but not a surprising one: when considering people who (a) have shown a desire and aptitude towards dispute resolution and (b) who hold a measure of community respect, people who have run for ArbCom will bubble up naturally. — Coren  13:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Some not all. NE Ent 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean, of course, that the profile of editors being considered aligns closely with the profile of editors who'd run for Arbcom; not that anyone who runs for Arbcom fits that profile. — Coren  02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New Trainee Clerks

Original Announcement

• Congratulations to our 2014 Arbs then! Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• My condolences to the new unpaid civil servants. Good luck with your work. MBisanz 12:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes in Advanced Permissions - 15 January 2013

Original Announcement

Extra appreciation here for the mini-biographies! – Philosopher  21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeals Subcommittee appointments

Announcement

BASC: Asgardian appeal

Original announcement

Two questions

1. Log says year banned was extended to indef by KnightLago (talk · contribs) -- was that via WP:AE? If not, what was the context of the extension?
2. Where does the committee want the discussion to take place? Here? WP:AN? NE Ent 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   As to question 1, I do not know, perhaps someone who was on the Committee then will remember. As to 2, here is usually where these things are done. Courcelles 23:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Per case, using a sock to evade the ban. Apteva (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

   Here will do (though who to notify of this discussion is not quite clear yet). It is worth making the point that this is a consultation, a solicitation of views, not the actual appeal itself. That is still being handled by ArbCom. But we want to get the views of others as well. Remember that most appeals are summarily declined (for various reasons), so only appeals that have a chance of success tend to get this far. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Basically the proposal of the BASC appears reasonable. A probation of three months was requested, BASC effectively extended that to a year, which is more realistic. Mandatory mentoring has not had a good track record, a voluntary mentor is basically what was suggested, and certainly could help. The subject area being edited is what I classify as the 99% of Misplaced Pages that is not useful, but obviously it is useful to others. Even one edit a week is better than none, if it is constructive and helpful. Most banned editors actually would make some constructive edits that are lost by banning them. Apteva (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• The proposed terms is potentially confusing. How long would restriction 1 be in force for? If the terms can be removed from the talk page after 1 year, does that mean any or all of the restrictions will no longer be in place after that? KTC (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• In Asgardian's appeal he made some comments regarding his attitude toward those he edit warred with over the four years he was active on Misplaced Pages. He has been asked to clarify those comments as the majority of those he edit warred with are still active on Misplaced Pages. He has not yet responded, and it might be worth asking him to respond directly here so the community, and in particular those he warred with, can assess his attitude today in comparison to that of 2006-2010. SilkTork 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)