Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DePiep (talk | contribs) at 22:43, 19 November 2020 (→ANI's and AN's: layout). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:43, 19 November 2020 by DePiep (talk | contribs) (→ANI's and AN's: layout)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist.

Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration		Shortcuts
Arbitration talk page archives
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009)
Various archives (2004–2011)
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–)
WT:RFAR subpages
Archive of prior proceedings

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers (October 2020)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original discussion

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Misplaced Pages checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 7
2–3 6
4–5 5

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Support
  1. Proposed. This is a standard motion each year in advance of the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. Katie 20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. – bradv🍁 20:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  5. Mkdw 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  6. Maxim(talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  9. Worm(talk) 07:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  11. SoWhy 08:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  12. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Arbitrator discussion
Community discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elements

Case Elements Clerk request

Request for a Clerk action.

The edit adds a "Joint statement by Double sharp and Sandbh", formatted as a bolded paragraph title (amidst other edits).

Please check for correct forms. (it is als very disturbing, but that's not for clergy)

  1. It does not show in the TOC
  2. It does not have proper confirmation/signing by the second editor (ie, Double sharp)
  3. And in general: what is the position of such a declaration? Correct way of going?

(ping User:Dreamy_Jazz) -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I confirm that I would like to confirm that statement also (simply unsure about proper procedure). Double sharp (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
In response to 1, the best course of action is, @Sandbh: do you want to make it a section instead of bolded text. I would prefer that they (or they don't) make this change it as it's their statement, and its not an issue which needs immediately dealing with.
In response to 2, the confirmation should be placed in Double sharp's section. They shouldn't edit outside their section, so that's why I suggest that. For that, I'll ping Double sharp to add such a confirmation (if they agree to it) at their convenience in their section (something like "I confirm I agree to the above statement by Sandbh", or anything which says you agree to it)
In response to 3, it looks good. I can see it being useful for the arbitrators to see that both users agree to the declaration. The declaration itself looks good, with an understanding that both users have agreed to cease the problems, which I think will be useful for the arbitrators to see, as I'm sure that if the users agree to calm things down and sort things out, arbitration then isn't needed. Dreamy Jazz 00:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz:, re (2): done. Double sharp (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz:, re (1): done. Sandbh (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Protocol query

Dreamy_Jazz, I am not sure what the way ahead is now.

Double sharp and I have resolved our differences.

Four editors at ArbCom raised concerns about the conduct of DePiep.

In this context, the remaining discussion at WP:ELEM concerned a request, "that we all reflect on our own problematic behaviours while doing so" i.e. seeking to resolve our differences.

WP:ELEM member R8R asked DePiep to do so, since there were remaining issues of concern about the latter's conduct. DePeip declined to accomodate this request.

DePiep invited me to comment. I did so, concluding with a request to DePiep to so reflect, and consider the way forward.

I gather R8R has now reluctantly requested ArbCom to consider the case, as far as DePiep's conduct is concerned, as has DePiep.

At this point, would the filing effectively split into two, one part re content-policy-conduct resolved, with the other part on conduct, unresolved?

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, I can't split the cases. If the case is accepted, it will focus on the part which needs arbitration. Based on that, the arbitrators will likely just deal with the other part on conduct. If the case is accepted, the arbitrators may choose to change the name of the case, however, for arbitration cases re multiple user's conduct the name of the case is usually the topic area it is in. The reason why I also say the case request can't be split is because its so intertwined, that even if case requests could be split at this stage, it would be impractical and difficult to split the arbitrator's comments and users statement's into the two different cases. Dreamy Jazz 22:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Just backing up what DJ is saying here. If we do take the case, the first phase is the evidence phase, and the rest of the case follows the evidence to reach whatever conclusion the committee deems appropriate. That could be anything from full site bans to nothing at all or anything in between. That being said, we certainly will not be resolving the underlying content dispute or disputes, the committee only deals with behavioral issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI's and AN's

  • Case header and Statements may be inaccurate (e.g. re AN/ANI, Archives).
As of 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC).
1. AN Dispute_on_an_RFC 2020 Jul 21 init Archive 13#Unacceptable_behaviour
2. ANI Misuse_of_sources_by_Sandbh, 2020 Aug 4
3. ANI Incivil_behaviour_by_DP, 2020 Sep 27
4. ANI UNcivil_behavior_by_DP 2020 Sep 28
5. ANI Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of Sandbh 2020 Oct 24
6. AN Sandbh,_round_4 2020 Nov 11
7. AN Multiple_breaches_of_WP:ASPERSIONS_by_Ds 2020 Nov 12
8. Usertalk User_talk:EdChem#The_ANI_thread_about_Sandbh One of several threads where EdChem gallantly tried to mediate

-DePiep (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests Add topic