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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:32, 28 March 2015 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators27,367 edits →Motion: Dreadstar desysopped (March 2015): new section← Previous edit Revision as of 03:21, 30 March 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 9, Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 10) (botNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 9 |counter = 10
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d
Line 11: Line 11:


__TOC__ __TOC__

== Suggestion: Split Collect and American politics cases now ==

There is obviously a strong majority in favor of two cases: Collect and American Politics redux. Wouldn't it be good idea to separate the two case request, and move some of the comments from the Collect case to the America Politics case? Some of the statements as they stand now are drifting far afield, and are also exceeding the mandatory 500 word limits by a very large margin.- ]] 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
The header for {{ping|Volunteer Marek}}'s statement just says "Volunteer Marek"; for consistency with others, it should be adjusted to read "Statement by Volunteer Marek".
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 08:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} -- ] (]) 08:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

== Clarification request: Improving the clarity of ] (March 2015) ==

:''''']'''''
{{archive top}}
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Yaris678}} (initiator)

=== Statement by Yaris678 ===
I have tweaked the wording of ] in a draft version at ]. I don't believe this proposed wording changes the meaning of the text but I do believe it makes it easier to follow, especially for those not familiar with the workings of ArbCom.

The table below list these changes with an explanation of each one. I would appreciate it if the committee would consider these changes for implementation.

{|class="wikitable"
!
!
!<small>A</small><br/>Text in edited by Roger Davies at 11:15, 11 March 2015
!<small>B</small><br/>Text in edited by Yaris678 at 10:42, 12 March 2015
!Explanation
|-
|<small>1</small>
|<small>Lead</small>
|<small><center>No lead</center></small>
|'''Discretionary sanctions''' seek to maintain an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles, by allowing administrators to impose restrictions on editors that severely or persistently disrupt that environment. Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks.
|This will enable the page to explain what discretionary sanctions are relatively quickly in a way that Misplaced Pages users appreciate elsewhere on the site, including on policy and procedure pages.
|-
|<small>2.1</small>
|<small>Decorum</small>
|Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases.
|Certain pages (typically, ], ], and ]) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases.
|rowspan="3"|Although these terms are explained in the "Definitions" section, people may jump to one of these sections and wonder what the terms are. Providing Wikilinks addresses this. In the proposed text, wikilinks are not provided if an abbreviation occurs soon after a previous explanation or wikilink for the term.
|-
|<small>2.2</small>
|<small>Expectations of administrators</small>
|Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.
|Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to ] to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ], do not constitute or create involvement.
|-
|<small>2.3</small>
|<small>Sanctions</small>
|Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE.
|Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at ].
|-
|<small>3</small>
|<small>Sanctions</small>
|Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and ] for the smooth running of the project.
|Uninvolved administrators are authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe to be necessary and ] for the smooth running of the project, including:
*revert restrictions (such as ] and 0RR)
*move restrictions
*]
*]
*blocks of up to one year in duration.
|Bulletise list and re-order sentence to make it easier to follow.
|-
|<small>4</small>
|<small>Appeals by sanctioned editors</small>
|3. submit a request for amendment at ].
|3. submit a request for amendment at ] ("ARCA").
|Consistency with point 2 of the list.
|}
=== Moved from other sections ===
:<small>In reply to {{U|Coldacid}}</small> I'm happy to lose the word "only". ] (]) 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:<small>In reply to {{U|GoodDay}}</small> Adding in the words "broadly construed" sounds like a good idea. ] (]) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
**<small>In reply to {{U|Thryduulf}}</small> That was just to avoid using a ] or similar. But happy to go there if you think it helps avoid the idea that we need more than one. i.e. change to "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe..." ] (]) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
***<small>In reply to {{U|Roger Davies}}</small> The "severely or persistently" language is taken straight from ]. ] (]) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
***<small>In reply to {{U|Roger Davies}}</small> Is this something that can't be addressed by removing the word "only" as I suggested above? ] (]) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
**<small>In reply to {{U|Roger Davies}}</small> I've got no problem with this being rolled into a housekeeping motion. On the other point... I was very careful to not touch the bar. Can you enlighten me on how this was raised? If you think this is the wrong venue for such a discussion, can I suggest ]? ] (]) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by coldacid ===
{{ping|Yaris678}} I think the part that "raises the bar" is {{tq|Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks.}} In particular, the "may only" part should probably be just "may", although since I'm not an arb I look forward to one of them correcting me. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Between this proposal and the by {{ul|Rich Farmbrough}}, is there anything in place for gathering these up for the next ]? I'd suggest rather than just declining and parking these away, that perhaps there should at least be a page to hold onto these requests until such time for the motion to come together. //&nbsp;] <small>(]&#124;])</small> 02:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by GoodDay ===
The ''broadly construde'' part of my own Arb restriction is quite clear to me. On the 2 occassions that I breached it (on my own talkpage), the result was a '''1-week block''' & a '''1-month block'''. The question might be, are editors under arb restrictions being dealt with evenly when they breach. ] (]) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by NE Ent ===
::Ds-Alerts are a techno-bureaucratic abomination which should be marked historical as soon as possible. Let's look at the wording: ''The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding See #topic codes for options, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is blah blah

::''Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
::''This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.''
::What rubbish. In other words, I pretty much have to lie / prevaricate, for the following reasons:
::#"This message is informational only" Do you think I just wasted too much of time reading through "To see whether a user has been Alerted to discretionary sanctions, ..." and doing that nonsense for "information only?" No, I think the editor is acting like a dweeb and it is my intent to rat them out at ] if it continues.
::#"Don't hesitate to contact me " Actually, I'd ''greatly prefer it'' if you hesitate. If I thought there's any chance addressing you like a reasonable person would work, I'd have done it already rather than dealing with the ds/alert nonsense.
::# (Not really important, but) "authorised" "Discretionary sanctions is" "familiarise" ... do I sound like a Brit/Aussie/Kiwi/Indian et. al? I'm an American: Baseball, Mom, Apple Pie and "sanctions are," "authorized," "familiarize." I respect your dialect of English please respect mine.
::Ds/alert are dehumanizing interaction for both the notifier and notifiee, contrary to the gestalt of the collaboration ideal of Misplaced Pages. The barriers to entry are over complicated instructions are the danger of getting sanctions if you post an alert 364 days after the last one. I understand the history; the newer system is an improvement over the prior "angst over warnings" system. But it's an unnecessary ]. We already have an existing, simple, easily and widely understood system for notifying and then enforcing remedies: the ] system. Please just use that. <small>]</small> 08:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
=== Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy ===
On point 3, add a bullet for the original omitted text "or other reasonable measure". Otherwise, these are great suggestions and I agree with all the other wordsmithing feedback submitted thus far. ] (]) 09:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
:In reply to your one-word answer "decline", {{Ping|AGK}}, may I ask why? I mean, I understand we can do this during housekeeping time instead, but what about the substance of the proposal? ] (]) 06:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
I'm surprised by this proposal after looking at ] where there were three rounds of consultation before Discretionary Sanctions wording was altered. Is it appropriate to suggest a rewrite here? <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Improving the clarity of ]: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*{{ping|Roger Davies}} Regarding coldacid's are they both on the arbwiki? {{ping|Coldacid}} There's also ] which I'm informed has been transferred over to the arbwiki.

=== Improving the clarity of ]: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*On a first read I'm inclined to agree with 1, 2 and 4 without comment. Point 3 though changes "any uninvolved administrator" to "uninvolved administrators", which could be interpreted as meaning an administrator may no longer act alone. I like the rest of the change though. ] (]) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
*So far I'm with Thrydulf. Yaris687's suggested change seems to work. Of course, I may have missed something being still green. ] (]) 16:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
**Looks like I did. It's probably better handled in a general housekeeping motion with other issues as Roger suggests. ] (]) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
* Hi {{u|Yaris678}}, I'm afraid I got the wrong end of the stick when you were asking at WT:AC about clarifications. I'd assumed you had some major points that needed urgently sorting ... As you know, DS is a committee procedure (with the force of policy) and changes can only be made by motion. Looking at your suggestions, none are urgent so best is to address them in the next housekeeping DS motion (probably in a couple of months). Incidentally, Point One is inaccurate and explicitly raises the bar at which DS can be imposed, which I'm sure was not intended. Thanks very much for your input, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
**{{u|Yaris678}} To clarify, DS isn't about " restrictions on editors that severely or persistently disrupt that environment", that can be done by admin under normal admin discretion. Instead, it allows admins deal with ''any'' misconduct, even minor misconduct, in sensitive/hot button/tinderbox articles. ie zero tolerance. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
**{{u|Coldacid}} Yes, you make a good point there too. DS is typically for "edits about, or pages relating to " and are also about exporting disputes into fresh areas outside the specific area of conflict, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
** {{u|Callanecc|Callan}} Yep, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 04:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
*Strike the "only" and I don't see this makes a difference, so, totally indifferent, really. Neither set of wording has any problems. ] (]) 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
*I'm pretty well indifferent on these too, and agree having them in with general housekeeping rather than as a special request. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Decline.''' ] ]] 00:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
----
{{archive bottom}}


== Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions/article probation (March 2015) == == Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions/article probation (March 2015) ==

Revision as of 03:21, 30 March 2015

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


Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions/article probation (March 2015)

Original discussion

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.

Initiated by Rich Farmbrough at 02:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I submit that the following remedies are outdated, and therefore:

  1. clutter the list of discretionary sanctions and article probations.
  2. provide unnecessary complexity and instruction creep.
  3. place unwelcoming templates on article talk pages.

None of these remedies have been invoked for several years, if ever, one case has no admin action for nine years.

I have no doubt that there are other outdated remedies but these certainly are.

I propose that these remedies be struck

1

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Remedy to be struck: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Passed: 27 October 2011

Last admin action: Never (22 December 2010 for previous version)

2

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Remedy to be struck: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Standard discretionary sanctions (Amended version)

Passed: 8 March 2013

Last admin action: 24 July 2009

3

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine#Article probation

Passed: 1 February 2008

Last admin action: 1 April 2008

4

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Article probation

Passed: 2 January 2007

Last admin action: 3 March 2007


5

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi#Article probation

Passed: 9 November 2006

Last admin action: Never

6

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

Remedy 1: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Article probation
Remedy 2: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#General restriction

Passed: 5 February 2008

Last admin action: 3 December 2010

7

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming

Remedy 1: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming#Probation
Remedy 2: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming#Mentorship (lapsed)

Passed: c. 6 February 2006

Last admin action: 12 June 2006

8

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

Remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Article probation

Passed: 13 March 2008

Last admin action: 29 May 2008


9

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Passed: 29 March 2007

Last admin action: 29 February 2008

10

Case: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

Remedy: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and Shell to Sea

Passed: 12 October 2009

Last admin action: 12 March 2011

11

Case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election

Remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election#Article probation
Remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election#Status of current editors
Enforcement: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Election#Continuing jurisdiction

Passed: 1 July 2006

Last admin action: None

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

@Roger

  • Delaying this for a short while is not a problem, though it is often better to break large tasks down, rather than heaping them up.
  • I would be interested to hear about this other initiative. It might have been worth pinging me about it, given the discretionary sanctions clear up I initiated last year.
  • It would be useful to explain why, for example, the log of admin actions ends in 2010 (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#2010): if there are four more years of undocumented admin actions, then this is a significant problem in its own right.
  • Note in regard to Armenia Azerbaijan 2 that DS notifications are not counted as admin actions, as any editor may make a DS notification.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks T Canens, I have just found that log. I mentally threw my hands up in despair. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

@AGK - making it a table is a moment's work, unfortunately one that I am not allowed to perform here. I have created a table at Meta:User:Rich Farmbrough/Article probation. Feel free to import it, with attribution. You could, of course, have made the table yourself, instead of complaining about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

Comment by T. Canens

@Rich Farmbrough: The Troubles and ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions logs were moved to the centralized WP:DSLOG. T. Canens (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Username

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Clerk notes

Discretionary sanctions/article probation: Arbitrator views and 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.

Motion: Dreadstar desysopped (March 2015)

Original discussion

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.

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely

  1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
  2. edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
  3. lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 8
1–2 7
3–4 6

Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Salvio 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Unfortunate but necessary. Seraphimblade 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Every last one of these would be worth a desysop, really. In conjunction, no other choice is possible. Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. This vote is based on actions 1 and 3, because, as indicated above, I'm recused with respect to action 2. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Per 2 and 3. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. LFaraone 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  7.  Roger Davies 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    NE Ent Dreadstar has unilaterally reversed an arbitration action before and has already been given the benefit of the doubt.  Roger Davies 06:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. NativeForeigner 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  10. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  11. as with Thryduulf, based on #1 and #3 DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  12. with regret that it became necessary. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  13. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
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.
Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions Add topic