Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 25 May 2008

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

WT:AC Archives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

Request for oversightship

I wish to become an oversighter, because there are not enough wikipedians with oversight privileges. I've identified edits that grossly violated wikipedia's policy on living people, and reported them to oversight. But sometimes the response takes too long (for example, the most recent time I asked for oversighting of an edit).

Getting oversight should be no big deal. Some tasks involved with being an admin (which I am not currently), such as closing an AfD or banning a user, may be difficult, but deciding to delete a phone number or an address should be easy. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your willingness to help out is admirable. However, I direct you to three points: 1/ all Oversighters are administrators, and I do not think that, in practice, the permissions will be issued to non-administrators. Oversight is, after all, a permission that has the potential to cause damage to the project, and for that reason, requires a great deal of trust. 2/ Requests for the oversight permission are generally directed to the AC's private mailing list (index page), and addressed in private. Obviously, I see no reason why the request cannot be addressed here, rather than requested privately, but I would advise that you at least contact the Committee, pointing them towards this thread. 3/ Those that are given access are required to confirm their identities to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you desire access to the oversight flag, you will need to identify, via a medium detailed here. Regards, Anthøny 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for oversight access can be emailed to ArbCom mailing list as Anthony says. It is necessary for people with oversight access to be admin since they need to be able to see deleted versions of articles since some edits are deleted prior to the request for removal by oversight. Thank you for the offer to help, though. :) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Anthony. When I read Misplaced Pages:Oversight#Assignment_and_revocation, I misinterpreted it as saying that you could put a request on the "Arbitration Committee Talk page". Should the section be clarified a bit? Andjam (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed correct there, Andjam. I have rewrote the relevant sections. Thank you for drawing attention to that matter. Regards, Anthøny 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the arbitration committee mailing list - it seems to be awaiting moderation. Andjam (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unable to get a reply from ArbComm

Hello, I am posting this message on behalf of User:Iantresman, who I know and have worked with outside of wikipedia. Ian tells me he has tried to contact the ArbComm to see if the the community ban he received can be re-examined in the light of new evidence, as he summarizes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Iantresman#Indefinite_ban:_unappealing_replies ...but apparently he has not received any reply at all. Could someone let him know where he stands?--feline1 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that he recently received a reply from an arbitrator after we reviewed the request. You double check and so will I. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian has emailed me privately to reply:

"Since my request for appeal was turned down last year, I re-applied on 1st Jan (with a reminder on the 15th) as it was clear that the evidence showed factually incorrect allegations (rather than just misleading ones).

• I received a reply from Josh Gordon on 16th Jan 2008 saying "Received and under consideration". Since then, I have no record of receiving responses from anyone on the Arbcom list. I sent reminder emails to:

• The ArbCom mailing list on 1 Feb and 14th Feb, without response.
• Morven on 20, 26, and 28 Feb without response.
• Kirill Lokshin on 3 March, without response.
• NewYorkBrad on 4 April, without response.

I then asked clerk Thatcher131 to see if he could get a response, and he was quite helpful. But my emails on 19, 25, 28 and 31 March, and 4 Apr, have all gone without response. ie. Since Josh's reply on 16th Jan 2008, a dozen of my reminders have gone answered."

feline1 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I got a similar reply to my email. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Soupdragon42 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, well. I see that ScienceApologist (ScienceAntagonist, more like) is still waging his Holy War against Plasma Cosmology. The suppression of Ian Tresman's valid contributions is nothing short of a witch hunt. Nearly all scientific breakthroughs have resulted from conflict, not consensus, and Misplaced Pages's irrational devotion to mainstream ideas thus stifles scientific progress

Scientific American magazine was still denying that Heavier than Air Flight was possible two years after the Wright brothers had been flying successfully!

Furthermore, Ian Tresman has always been polite and reasonable, by stark contrast to the behaviour of certain Wiki people who should know better. His community ban was clearly instigated on false pretences

NB. ScienceAntagonist. Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman again, as I have demonstrated to more reasonble moderators that this is not the case - dvdplasmacosmology.net

• I've opened an RFAR to appeal this as it appears that the request isn't being taken seriously. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

JW's tie breaking vote?

From memory, it seems that Jimbo's role as a tie-breaker, when the Arbitration Committee is in a deadlock, conflicts with with policy on another page (Or, as I have just found Newyorkbrad's comment in the discussion linked below, "oddly enough the actual Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy does not contain this provision"). Looking at the case just now which originally brought this to my attention, the controversy concerning this role was brought to light by this proposal link. And at least one of the conversations concerning this tie-breaking role took place here. So, should this text:

"In this circumstance (a tie vote), the Arbitrators may ask Jimbo Wales to cast a tie-breaking vote, but this has yet to occur."

be removed? It does not seem to have acceptance. And one arbitrator changed their vote just to keep it from being invoked. . . R. Baley (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

R.Baley, the Committee is discussing several internal policy matters. I'll add this to the list for us to discuss. FloNight (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I know the AC is busy, but this still appears to be an unsettled issue. Is there any discussion going on about this? I ask because it would be a shame to leave it until such time as it would cause the maximum amount of drama to decide. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for Checkusership

As noted elsewhere, a discussion is ongoing beginning with Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Requests for checkusership. The discussion centers around the idea of an RfA-like process for selecting and/or approving Checkusers. Though I am reasonably certain that some or all of the members of the committee are aware of the discussion, I'm adding a notice here to notify you of the discussion and the proposal. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments welcome

I've started a discussion here about whether an official clerk system is really needed. Al Tally (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet notification

Hi there, an editor who is currently under suspicion of abusing multiple accounts (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/TheNautilus) has stated here that he has notified the "arb bureaucracy" of his account usage. Could somebody please check to see if this is true? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Either email the arb mailing list or post on one of their talk pages. Only the arbs will know if this is true. You could also file a report at WP:SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've contacted Charles Matthews and Jpgordon. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is the "arb bureaucracy"? Anyway, I couldn't find any such notifications in the email records going to back to my beginning as an arbitrator in Jan 2006, and there's nothing in the archive either (at least, nothing with the word "TheNautilus" could be found.) However, if I were participating in the RFC in question, I'd point out that in the absence of any suggestion of abuse, it's simply irrelevant whether or not anyone was informed; current sockpuppet policy allows for such multiple accounts (a policy I disagree with, but there you have it.) It does look that opinion is already being voiced adequately on the RFC. --jpgordon 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is tendentious editing and multiple policy violations, not simple sockpuppet abuse. This is why an RfC is needed, rather than a simple RFCU block. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume the "arb bureaucracy" is the arbitration committee. I've seen that usage used a few times in emails I have received from editors who do not have much experience with the arbitration process. I don't think it's meant offensively, at least in this case. :) Anthøny 23:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't offended, just amused at the term. --jpgordon 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no memory of it but I got an email from TheNautilus in March 2007 discussing a case. In it he mentions using a past account and that some admins (he names them) were aware of the reason for him starting with a new user account. At the time, I did not see the email as notification, but he certainly did say so in the email. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press