Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests: 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 Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:54, 14 October 2007 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,284 edits Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz re: User:Rex Germanus - Request for siteban← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:22, 21 January 2025 edit undoFolly Mox (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,341 editsm whoops just kidding already fixed. self-revert. Undid revision 1270864182 by Folly Mox (talk)Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
:''WT:RFAR redirects here. You might be looking for ].

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 19 |counter = 20
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|minthreadsleft = 2
}} }}
{{Arbcom-talk|requests for arbitration process}}
{{shortcut|]}}
{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable" align="right" width="200px"
|-
! border="0" heading align="center" colspan="6" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|-
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
! border="0" align="center" | ]
|}

== Exclusion of arbitration pages from indexing? ==

In a discussion today on ANI, it was noted that AfD's and RfA's are now tagged with code that excludes them from indexing in Google and other search engines. In view of recent requests for courtesy blanking of some arbitration decisions, should this feature be extended to RfAr case pages as well? ] 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, definitely. All pages starting "Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration" and "Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration" should have this feature enabled on them. ] ] 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::While it's certainly reasonable for people not to want these pages to be the much-dreaded "top result on google"; is there any way at all to do this without making it impossible to search the content of these pages at by any means? (mediawiki search is worthless and we all know it.) Maybe permit some little-known wiki-centric search engine (I know I've seen one, but can't remember what it's called) to index them? —] 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== A technical question ==

It seems that ] filed an RfC about ] in June 2006: . Is it possible to look at this RfC? It is probably deleted. I am not familiar with relevant WP policies.] 01:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:That RfC which is over a year old was probably buried by the more recent one. It may be possible to find it; if you do, you will see that it has nothing to do with the current dispute, and that it was resolved when nearly every participant determined the complaints to be exaggerated if not utterly without merit.

:Biophys, I would like to ask you again to please stop changing your RfAr. At the top of the page it states that you should compose your statement offline and post it when done rather than posting continuous drafts. You are making your arguments a moving target, which is very difficult to respond to.

:If you really want a dispute resolved with me you should try actually discussing the dispute with me rather than escalating to ArbCom at the first sign of disagreement. Bringing up unrelated disputes from years ago is not an appropriate way of providing evidence that you tried ] in the past. A simple conversation on talk pages about disputed points is a much better way to go about resolving such content disputes. Good day. ] 01:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

::The old request for comment has 86 edits. It can be restored temporarily for the purposes of the case, if the case is accepted. While that page is indeed ancient history, if Biophys can prove that their is a connection between your alleged misbehavior than and your alleged misbehavior now, the arbitrators might consider it relevant. ] ] 02:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you, Picaroon. Yes, it is exactly my point that problems with Csloat behavior persist over several years. What kind of prof would be appropriate here? Obviously, I can not tell if this older RfC is relevant without looking at it. I hope this older RfC will be available for ArbCom members, when they make a decision to consider this case or not.] 02:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Committee members are all admins, so I won't need to restore it for them. I'll add a link to the deleted history in the request, and will restore to a subpage temporarily for all to see if the case is taken. ] ] 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Point of order; this is fishing. Biophys admits up front he has no idea whether this conflict from over a year ago is relevant. It was an RfC that was settled, quite to the embarrassment of the person who started it, as I recall, since almost everyone agreed that it was out of line. It is ridiculous for him to cite it as evidence when he has no idea what it said. I have no objection to it being made public, but I do object to it being cited as evidence by someone who admits he has no idea what it ever said, in a dispute where he has not even bothered trying to talk directly to me. ] 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::Obviously, an RfC about behavior of a user is relevant in RfA about behavior of that user.] 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::This is a fishing expedition, as you have basically admitted. And you're pulling up an RfC that was settled a long time ago and presenting it as evidence that you have brought this dispute to my attention and it was not settled. And you admit you have never even seen the RfC -- this is quite bizarre. ] 07:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

== Complaint about Fred Bauder ==

It has been recommended by ] and ] that I post this complaint here&mdash;although I suspect posting here is useless and will be dismissed.

The complaint is as follows:

<small>Moved from ].--] - ] 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)</small> (moved to my talk page)

I would like to complain that after the ] had been accepted and the Arbitration opened, Arbitrator ] voted '''Keep''' in an AFD on article at that was in question in the arbitration about the founder of ] by ] about himself, ].

]'s self promotion and promotion of his organizations in multiple Misplaced Pages articles plus spamming and COI behavior were at issue in the arbitration. I believe this gives the appearance of bias and I question this type of behavior on the part of arbitrators.
I have not had the nerve to complain until now. --] 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
:The case closed in March, which is more than half a year ago. The train has left the station. Furthermore, how exactly does participating the deletion discussion make Fred biased? A link might be helpful. ] ] 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

== Clerk query ==

*As a condition of my temporary unbanning to make a community ban appeal, I am not allowed to post anywhere else on Misplaced Pages (except my user page).
*This morning, I was accused of ], but unbanning conditions means I can't reply.
*Can I ask that a clerk notes this on the ], that I am unable to reply, and note that I have replied to the editor concerned on my talk page? --] 22:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:I am a clerk as well as an administrator. I hereby authorize you to post a reply on that page, because it has become relevant to the request for arbitration. When you do, you can link to this thread and mention it in your edit summary, so that there will be no allegation you violated the conditions of your unblock. ] 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed rule changes ==

I'd like to throw out a few ideas for speeding up cases, and motions in prior cases, without sacrificing quality deliberation (expect this to be a theme in the upcoming elections).

On the subject of cases in progress, how would any of the following changes sound?
*(1) Arbitrators may vote on motions to close in cases they are inactive on ''without'' affecting the majority.
*(2) Motions and injunctions require four net votes ''or'' the majority, whichever is less (it will nearly always be four net votes).

Regarding motions in prior cases
*(3) I previously suggested that these be removed after 30 days if they have not passed. James F told me this sounds alright, but I heard nothing from any other arbitrators.
*(4) Switch these motions to requiring four net votes instead of majority of active arbitrators.

Thoughts? ] ] 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

*(5) Another possibility is making motions to close that are unopposed for a certain amount of time (72 hours? 96?) pass. One example of this issue is ], where we have a straightforward case stuck at two votes to close since the 9th. ] ] 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:<small> I've added the numerals through in front of your various suggestions to make references in the ensuing discussion easier to follow. ] 20:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC) </small>

:I certainly understand the motivation behind all of these proposals, and they plausible enough in view of the delays that are currently afflicting the arbitration process, but I hope that they ultimately do not need to be adopted.
:For example, proposal (3) may make sense in that a motion in a prior case that does not attract attention from a majority of the arbitrators after 30 days probably does not enjoy widespread support. However, and with full recognition of the fact that the arbitrators have other on-wiki pursuits as well as busy real lives, I cannot imagine why there should ''be'' such a thing as an RfAr motion that takes more than 30 days to resolve, and therefore would be reluctant to see this contingency contemplated as a regular occurrence in the arbitration policy.
:Similarly, (1) would usefully address a situation where 4 of the arbitrators who have voted on a pending case don't get around to voting to close the case. In these situations, and this has happened at least once before, another arbitrator may activate himself or herself on the case for the purpose of voting to close. But this is hardly optimal: After all, the purpose of the vote to close is to give the arbitrators an opportunity to ensure that the implementation notes correctly reflect their intent, and that there is no further work to be done on the case. This surely should best be done by the arbitrators who have written and approved the decision, rather than those who have not been involved in the case.
:So while I can see the rationale behind these and the other proposals, and they reflect a desirable and creative approach to streamlining the process, I would rather see the delays in addressing cases and motions resolved through other means. ] 20:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::I understand the logic behind 1, 3, and 5. (I am concerned that 2 and 4 change the definition of majority in some sense). I also understand Newyorkbrad's objections. ] 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe something drastic needs to be done to address the ArbCom's inability to perform its function responsibly. Arbitrators who are "away" or inactive or do not make a single ArbCom related edit for, say, over three weeks in row or over a total of 30 days out of any three months should step down and allow replacement to be appointed. ArbCom's inefficiency has become untenable. --] 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:I was initially going to disagree with this. Then I noticed ]. So it's pretty clear that Arbcom, for whatever reason, is not doing their job. -] <small>]</small> 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::The only one I know who is above the ArbCom, so to speak, is {{user|Jimbo Wales}}. Perhaps someone should attempt to contact him? —] (]) 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:::As far as ArbCom not performing its function, it still is moving cases, but taking a month for most, when half that time would seem reasonable. Some of the delay is the sheer number of cases, but arbitrators not arbitrating is clearly front and center. There are three reasonable ways to address this. First, we can ask inactive arbitrators to activate themselves, or step down (I think bringing in a higher authority is a bad idea and will tend to undermine the committee.) Second, we have elections opening in 7 weeks, with nominations starting a few weeks earlier. Ask about availability and commitment. And third, we could come up with a formula that would allow a large portion of the ArbCom to act for the full ArbCom. ] 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Before petitioning Jimbo, the community must form its opinion whether its view is that Jimbo should appoint anyone he wishes or whether he should use the last election results as a guideline. There were several candidates with solidly above 70% support who were not appointed as there were enough with over 80 % support votes. --] 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Arbitrators received overwhelming support from the community; removing one for inactivity seems harsh, but understandable. Coopting an arbitrator who had received less than overwhelming support would be cheating the community. ] 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

== Signing Comments? ==

Hi, I have not been signing the stuff I write in my arbitration request (with four tildes), because it's not a talk page. However, it just dawned on me that others are signing. My apologies if I messed up by not signing.] 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
:Signing is not of pressing importance, since the header will tell us who made the comment. However, timestamps can be helpful in sorting out the path of a conversation, so please make an effort to do it from now on. Thanks. ] ] 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the info. I'll do my best to sign from now on.] 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

== No-Shows ==

Just out of curiosity, what happens if an admin (I) imposes a permaban on an editor (II), and then the editor (II) makes an arbitration request naming the admin (I) as an involved party, but the admin (I) never shows up to make an ARBCOM statement?] 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:These two prior arbitrations may offer some guidance: ] and ]. --]&nbsp;(]) 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::Although the committee can consider the conduct of all involved parties, I believe there is a bit of a distinction to be drawn between a case drawn to seek review or reconsideration of the ban, as opposed to a case alleging habitual misconduct by the administrator. In the former situation, at the case acceptance stage, the administrator might feel that his or her points had been covered by others, for example. If the case is accepted, all parties including administrator (I) in your example would be notified and invited to present evidence and workshop proposals. Hope this helps. ] 13:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the information, Newyorkbrad. Earlier today, , including two questions which have not been addressed by others so far in these proceedings.] 14:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::At some point "reminding" crosses the line to "badgering." Just an observation. ] 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::And do you believe that line has been crossed, Raymond?] 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::Again, just an observation, not an accusation. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. ] 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::It does not fit, nor has anyone suggested that it fits. But thank you for the observation.] 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Ah yes, Brad makes the important distinction between making a statement before the case is accepted and participating after the case has been accepted. I had thought Ferrylodge was referring to the latter. The arbitrations I linked to of course deal with failures to participate in cases after they have been accepted. --]&nbsp;(]) 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

==Suggestion for Motion in Prior case ]==
Re: {{userlinks|Rex Germanus}}


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}}
Today I blocked Rex Germanus for one month for disruption at ANI. One September 30 he was blocked by {{admin|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} for 24 days for "WP:POINT, persistant conflictuabl edits, chronical failure to work for the project rather than use it for personal crusades" , but the block was lifted early on October 1 so Rex could participate at ] per an offer by {{admin|Moreschi}}.


__TOC__
Rex came to ANI today and made frivolous accusations and refused to desist, in spite of the fact that {{admin|Jossi}} had previously warned him that any disruption after the unblock would lead to an immediate block. {{user|Arnoutf}} commented: "Agree with this block; any edits beyond his own defense (reason for restricted unblock) where a favour, Rex should have been careful not to abuse this leniency."


== Egad ==
Rex Germanus' has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, POV pushing and disruption. The community is thoroughly tired of these problems, and the opinions at the suggest that Rex has already been given many more chances than other editors who have been sitebanned. Rex has been blocked '''9 times''' since he was put on probation.


Enough is enough. I request a siteban. - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Misplaced Pages:ACCR}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:22, 21 January 2025

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

Egad

Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:ACCR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:ACCR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3 § Misplaced Pages:ACCR until a consensus is reached. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions Add topic