Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bradv (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 9 January 2020 (Reverted edits by 86.130.35.245 (talk) to last version by Serial Number 54129). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

User:Anupam unblocked following successful appeal

Original announcement

• Glad to see ARBCOM handled this one - it was heading into territory that made it poorly suited for the usual methods Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding The Rambling Man

Original announcement

• I echo the concerns of GW in the initial statement, over as she said, "removing a sanction that TRM repeatedly violated, without including some sort of replacement." I may somewhat agree that the wording of the initial sanction was problematic and was not effective in curbing uncollegial behavior, and it also is clear that there was little desire by the community at large to enforce the sanction based on its wording. However, there is consensus that there is a problem that needs fixing, and to remove the sanction without a replacement, better worded, one sends the message that TRMs treatment of others is and has always been OK, which is definitely not true. I would have liked to have seen the sanction amended rather than vacated. --Jayron32 13:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I don’t think us saying that the restrictions we've placed haven't helped and deferring to the community (as well as suggesting another case might be in order if the problem persists) at all implies any lack of a problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• A debacle all-around. But perhaps vacating the sanctions and starting from a clean slate is the best way to go. In wording they were vague, ineffective, and confusing, holding TRM to a standard that no reasonable person could be expected to meet. Still, this may be a fruitless endeavor as it seems TRM has effectively retired.--WaltCip (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  TRM effectively retires frequently. I'm not concerned he'll be gone long. --Jayron32 15:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well I was curious about this so I checked, and the last time TRM went over a month without editing was in 2008. So this is in fact rather unusual for him.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  That may be true, past performance is no guarantee of future performance and all that. It is definitely not the first time since 2008 where he announced his intention to quit. He's retired many times, and been back in short order. Maybe he really is gone. Could be. --Jayron32 15:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think this was the right decision as the sanction clearly was confusing and could not be enforced properly. I don't see why TRM can't be sanctioned for uncivil behaviour in the same way any other editor would be.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I will say, without regard for TRM specifically and just speaking in the general, is that there is a general unwillingness to sanction editors for incivility where such editors have an established presence at Misplaced Pages, and I saw this sanction (which has proved to be inadequate in hindsight) as an attempt to clarify and add teeth to a civility restriction. There are clearly two ways incivility is handled:

• When a new user or an IP address shows up and calls someone an asshole or something similarly, they are quickly warned and if they repeat the behavior, they are blocked.
• When an established user, who everyone knows is aware of the civility and NPA policies, calls someone an asshole, they will either not be blocked, or if they are blocked, another admin will quickly unblock them and make excuses for their behavior. Paradoxically, the more egregious the violation, the less likely the block is to stick, so calling someone a "fucking asshole" will result in people saying "there's no rule against saying fuck" and thus it is easier to get unblocked if you say "fuck" than if you merely insult someone without using one of the seven deadly words.

• I do want to clarify that TRM has never, to my knowledge, called someone an asshole or a fucking asshole. What they have done is to cast aspersions against people over simple differences of opinion; to use aggressive and insulting language about people's motives or intelligence over any difference of opinion, and to presume that anyone who does things differently than he would is met with scorn and insult. He method of convincing people he's right is not "my way is better because of these reasons" it is "my way is better because your way is stupid" (again, not sure he's ever used the word stupid, but he's said similar things). The use of insult and scorn to win arguments is highly incivil and unproductive and TRM does so often. That sort of behavior is what we need to stop. --Jayron32 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have amended my comments above slightly, without changing the general meaning, with better word choices. My original comments can be found in the history. --Jayron32 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right that our approach to civility is inconsistent and wrongheaded. But the community has never ever come to grips with it and that's not a matter for Arbcom.

I'm grateful Arbcom finally removed this problematic sanction that was causing more trouble than it was solving. TRM wrote here on several occasions that he felt it was a stick he was regularly hit with and even, towards the end, he said it made him feel harassed. No wonder he's taken a long wikibreak - and I hope it won't mean retirement now that he can no longer be targeted using this particular sanction. Aside from anything else, the Boat Race is fast approaching, and he normally works like a demon to get our coverage up to standard.

TRM was once a very highly regarded member of this community, with advanced permissions. He is still highly regarded by the many editors he's worked with (helped) on quality content: FAs, FLs, GAs etc. I hope he'll come back and Arbcom and the community will one day recognise they can put all the rest of the sanctions to bed, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope TRM does return. As Dweller says, if TRM doesn't improve The Boat Race 2020, a bunch of new editors and IPs will and (with all due respect) they won't do half as good as job at it for the simple reason they're not experienced enough. I always like having him "on tap" to do a featured list (particularly something like Pink Floyd discography which has had several failed FLC attempts), and it has been reassuring for him coming to my defence in the past. Ritchie333 17:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The motion baffles me, not so much what the motion actually is but rather the fact that several arbitrators acknowledged that it's kicking the can down the road, but they voted for it anyway. Like, if Arbcom had said "in hindsight, TRM's behavior is not disruptive so we are vacating the restriction", I would find that unpalatable, but logical. With "we know TRM's behavior is disruptive but we're vacating the restriction anyway, and feel free to file a future case request", I don't know know what to think - arbitration is supposed to "break the back of the dispute", but this seems like Arbcom saying they don't know what to do either. Banedon (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's Arbcom saying "this restriction has failed to solve the problem, and has actually made things worse so we'll get rid of it for now. We don't have any better ideas at the moment but we'll give it another try if things don't improve." Far from ideal, but better than the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Magioladitis

Original announcement

Question about ARBPIA4 and related content

I'm slightly unsure about how this works on pages with related content. The General Sanctions section says "500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict... On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring."

WP:A/I/PIA#General sanctions upon related content says "When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} on the talk page and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} as an editnotice to do so. If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content." The way that reads, you can't revert an IP editor or someone covered by 500/30 until the template and of course the edit notice is placed. Have I read that correctly? Doug Weller talk 13:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't cite the sanction unless you've made notice that the article and/or content is covered by the sanction. There are lots of reasons one could revert an IP for a bad edit, just that your rationale should not be only an ARBPIA violation unless there was already a clear notice of ARBPIA present. It would be rare for any edit which violated ARBPIA would somehow be perfect if only ARBPIA wasn't violated. I will say that you clearly have a specific event in mind, and speaking in the general about a specific event is unlikely to be helpful. If you could include some diffs to show what prompted this concern, you could get better feedback more tailored to helping you work out the problem you are having. --Jayron32 13:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks but I was hoping for a reply from one of the Arbs involved or a clerk. No specific example but one I was concerned with in the past is politicians whose articles are only generally related. I'm assuming that the edit notice and talk page notices are required before reverting for ARBPIA reasons, but just want reassurance that I'm right. On the opposite end, still related to articles generally related, are the edits that try to reverse the location of a place or something that involves only a few words, not a whole paragraph or section. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

For both primary articles and related content, "The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced". The way I read that, that means you can still revert the IPs for the ordinary reasons without the templates, but they can revert you right back if the templates aren't present. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Money emoji appointed trainee clerk

Original announcement

• 💰, 💸, furthermore 🤑, perhaps even 💵... notwithstanding 💲! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Money bag, Flying money, furthermore seeing dollars, perhaps even Money emoji... notwithstanding dollar sign?" I'm not sure 💵 follow. 💵Money💵emoji💵 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I had been happy to see this but then I see Money is off to an inauspicious start not being able to recognize Salvidrim's clear as can be message. What kind of clerk will he be if he can't understand such straightforward expression? (j/k of course, congrats Money). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Money emoji, unfortunately, resigned mere hours after being appointed after being intellectually defeated by Salvidrim, setting the record for shortest clerkship" 💵Money💵emoji💵 20:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Congrats! I've had this page on my watchlist since the 2019 ARBCOM elections and it's nice to see some good news. :) Yes, I used an emoticon instead of an emoji. Clovermoss (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• 👋 GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome Money! Let's hope you dont mess up as much as I did dealing with stuff the first few times ;). CodeLyoko 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• (Congratulations! Money Emoji). –Davey2010 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations Money Emoji, and welcome aboard. – bradv🍁 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome to the team --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think we've only crossed paths in copyright related issues but my experience is very positive. Welcome!--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• You'll do great! Congrats! Puddleglum 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome! SQL 03:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Money emoji: why have you recused from the Kudpung request? ——SN54129 13:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

Original announcement