Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - 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 | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Courcelles (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 22 September 2015 (→Disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from opening WP:AE requests: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:59, 22 September 2015 by Courcelles (talk | contribs) (→Disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from opening WP:AE requests: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion. Discussion about the committee in general should go to a wider audience at WT:AC or WT:ACN.
→ Please click here to start a new topic. ←
Archiving icon
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Note about these archives

In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation.


Amendment request: Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages (September 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 NE Ent at 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_2#LOCR
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Change the section Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Change the section Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
  • to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement will have its own talk page.

Statement by NE Ent

The Misplaced Pages watchlist software links talk pages to their corresponding page, so that users monitoring a particular page can be notified of discussion about it. Given that Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (WP:AE) is generally monitored not by arbitrators, but rather dispute resolution volunteers, including the administrators who are expected to enforce committee decisions with ideally, minimal to no involvement from the committee itself, it is counter productive to community discussion to have to host discussions about WP:AE on a page (e.g. WP:AN which may not be watchlisted by the participants.

LFaraone, per usual practice, any policy proposal than occurred at WP:AE could be linked to from WP:AN (or the central noticeboard). NE Ent 23:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by L235

I fully support this proposed change. However, the Committee needs to make sure to set rules to sure that, as Anthony puts it, the page does not become an annexe of AE proper. The Committee may want to consider who will have the responsibility to maintain and enforce decorum at it, admin patrollers at AE or the clerks. (In theory, the clerks' remit extends to AE, but AFAIK the Committee don't want us to, preferring us leave that to admins at AE.) My opinion is that the clerks are more suited to it (it's not a part of AE, it should be lower-traffic, and whatever purposes the Committee assigns it, it's likely it will be similar to a chunk of WT:A/R), but the Committee definitely needs to make it clear, one way or another. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 24.151.10.165

I believe that this proposal was made in response to an AN discussion about banning IP editors from initiating AE reports. As I commented there diff: In the extremely unlikely event that as an IP editor I should ever need to initiate a report at AE, I would expect to be able to so, unless the page was temporarily semi-protected due to ongoing vandalism, in which latter case I would hope to be able to submit a semi-protected edit request on the talk page as with any other semi-protected page. Presumably no confirmed editor would approve a frivolous talk page request. Having a talk page would facilitate such vandalism-related temporary semi-protection. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

Pinging Kirill Lokshin for any thoughts he might have, as I believe he helped design the current set-up of these pages (though I don't know that he's followed them recently). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

Thryduulf, I think the particular discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 9#.22If you must reply to another person.27s statement.2C do so in your own section.22. The talk page archives regarding the arbitration committee are not centralized, unfortunately. I believe there also might have been a discussion about having a separate AE talk page at WP:AN at some point. Liz 01:54, 2 September 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 amendment request or provide additional information.

Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages.: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages.: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As you said, WP:AE is monitored primarily by dispute resolution volunteers. MediaWiki allows one to watch an article along with its talk page; you cannot watch a talk page alone. So persons who are interested in the process and procedures of WP:AE but disinterested in following closely the day-to-day proceedings of the page wouldn't watchlist it anyway. Centralising such P&P discussions on WP:AN or WP:ARCA is beneficial for that reason.
That said, I agree that administrators actively actioning enforcement requests would be interested in the current WP:AN discussion. I don't have particularly strong feelings as to whether WT:AE continues to be a redirect or not, but holding discussions there seems poor.
Perhaps Flow will fix all these problems eventually. *ducks* LFaraone 22:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: fair enough. For clarity, I don't oppose this change. LFaraone 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Implemented: I have re-created a stand-alone talk page for arbitration enforcement. This amendment request could presumably now have the distinction of being the first thread to be archived to the resurrected WT:AE. Many thanks to NE Ent for bringing this proposal. AGK 22:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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.

Disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from opening WP:AE requests

I made a WP:AN proposal in late August for disallowing non-autoconfirmed users (in practice, IPs and throwaway socks) from opening WP:AE requests. It was closed with broad support on September 9. The only thing that prevented me, and probably others, from adding this principle to the top of the AE page was an arbitrator, User:Doug Weller, saying in the discussion that these things were up to arbcom — the community can't decide them. Some users expressed the hope that in view of the community support for the change, arbcom would take an interest and, well, just make the change. But maybe not? Is there internal committee discussion behind the scenes, or is somebody outside the committee supposed to first request that arbcom pass a motion about it? Where, if so, is that request supposed to be made? Does me asking on this new shiny talkpage cut it? (Didn't think so. But just in case: Dear arbcom, please make this change.) Bishonen | talk 13:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC).

Discussion

Note. I'm not sure arbs can be expected to notice it this time round either, or not spontaneously. It's a bit of a paradox (I'm putting it politely) that ArbCom owns the AE, and only arbcom can make the call about disallowing IPs from opening AE requests; but arbcom has very little to do with running the board. It's wholly run by community admins. Arbs most likely don't watch it, or not very actively. However. I pinged Doug Weller above, since he had said stuff in the AN discussion, and he has just mailed me saying he can't do anything about it, as he's travelling, and I should probably e-mail the committee. I've done so, and urged them to take a look here; my third bid to catch their attention. If that doesn't work, I'm done, for my part. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC).

I would like to ask something, what do you think this proposal will achieve? Autoconfirmed status is fairly easy to get, play around sandbox or make some comments and wait a few days, and ta daa! You are eligible! So bad actors will do that, yea a slight inconvenience for them but not really a preventative solution. The repercussions, though, will be a huge community mistrust and ABF for the IP's that engaged in the discussion and actually took the time and created an account to report hypothetical disruptive editors. What was the problem with allowing the IPs again? We were unable to know if they are socks evading scrutiny or boomerang. Now instead of IPs we will have new accounts that are going to be suspected of evading scrutiny. Then what? Put another sanction? 30/500 maybe? Or perhaps only elite editors who know the secret handshakes can file?
Or perhaps we can focus on the accusation instead of the accuser? Yea I know some people are using IPs to avoid getting boomeranged, but to be honest I don't give a fuck who reports a disruptive behavior if it merits an AE action. Yea it's injustice, but not really... If another editor in the same area(whom we are suspecting of trying to avoid boomerang) being disruptive themselves to merit boomerang, then by all means the ban hammer is yours. If not, then the only editor who is disruptive is the one accused by some mysterious IP, and that editor should be the only one to be sanctioned wouldn't you agree??
  • A proposal to solve some of this: Focus on the evidence that the accuser provided regardless of the accuser's identity. Then if you think the accuser is a sock evading scrutiny, do a checkuser on them!(I know you need evidence to do a checkuser, but you all agree an IP filing an AE request is fishy enough to disallow them.) But whether they are a sock account previously blocked or avoiding boomerang, it should not have any bearing on the verdict anyway. If someone is disruptive enough to require AE sanctions, then he needs to be sanctioned regardless of other bad actors, if not then he will not be sanctioned and no harm done. Darwinian Ape 04:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • If a situation were clear cut, an established editor would make an WP:AE report and there would be a quick result. The problem comes with situations which are murky and which sometimes involve off-wiki campaigning with people planning how best to remove their opponents so their POV can be pushed. The friendly idea of welcoming all comers and giving them a platform from which to promote their agenda overlooks the corrosive influence that has, not just on the person being attacked, but on the community where experienced editors have to grind their teeth while "discussing" an issue with what they know is a sock. One frustration-driven outburst might get the experienced editor sanctioned, while the throw-away account doesn't give a shit. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Even if they aren't sanctioned, being called to AE when you are innocent and having to explain yourself is stressful, and when it is done multiple times (as it has) then it is disruptive. Like Johnuniq says, there is always someone with at least a few edits and two weeks tenure willing to file when there is a real cause. This change just prevents throwaway sock accounts from badgering someone without consequences to themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand the concerns, I just don't think this proposal will alleviate them, rather it will shift the mistrust to new editors. If an IP files an AE complaint, there are two possible scenarios, A: they engaged in the conversation and are the wronged party or at least they were lurking on an article where an editor is being disruptive, B: They are malicious sock accounts or part of an offsite campaign. Which hypothetical do you think this proposal will effect? Malicious sock accounts and offsite campaigns, seriously?? When being autoconfirmed is just as easy as being an IP? This is the internet where tech savvy trolls will get away with almost anything. Who knows how many "ex" editors that are banned forever still contributes to this site. The other thing is do you think IP filers are a rampant trend or something? I am relatively new but I've been watching this page for about a year now, and I reckon only a handful of IP's filed. Our best bet is to focus on the evidence presented and make a ruling on that. If an editor is being disruptive he needs sanctions it doesn't matter if there are other parties being equally if not more disruptive, two wrongs don't make a right. Darwinian Ape 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note If you check the main AE page, you will see that Guerillero closed a request due to the previous discussion disallowing IPs to file reports. While he can't speak for the whole committee, the fact that a sitting Arb closed the report out of respect for the previous consensus tells me there is at least some support at Arb, enough for him to go out on a limb and take action. And since G did it as an admin, I would assume any other admin could do the same, at least until told differently by Arb as a whole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - if Arbcom shows absolutely no interest in the matter, then the community consensus should be implemented by default. There is no point in forcing them into giving an official statement here.--Staberinde (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

Since the header added by AGK when the committee agreed to unredirect this talk page says "This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. " it's logical to assume we can determine who can post. NE Ent 09:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If that's true, then I can't think of a better opportunity to invoke WP:IAR. The project is governed by the community, and Arbcom exists to fulfill a role in that governance. As far as I'm concerned, there is a clear consensus that needs to be upheld by admins who chose to serve at AE. IPs and brand new users who find themselves embroiled in situation requiring Arbcom sanctions can take their their complaints directly to Arbcom.- MrX 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
AN, actually. NE Ent 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems to be recognized by at least one of the arbcom members, rendering the discussion in the above section a bit in the air. Though I still think it wont solve any problem and rather create new ones. Darwinian Ape 12:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not always. If multiple admin close IP requests without Arb weighing in, then it is assumed they agree. The question is who has standing to decide, Arb or the community as a whole. I can envision Arb doing nothing so we never have to decide who really has authority, that and I'm sure many agree with it anyway. The Arb that closed the last (first, actually) IP request did it in his capacity as an admin, not on behalf of Arb, but it did open the gate for other admin to do the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Add topic