Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Stuff we're involved in

[edit] Snowspinner

Since I've been on the job for two weeks already, here's what I've already done.

I'll also take the VV appeal - it's high profile, and two sets of eyes would benefit it. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Have done this. User:Snowspinner/Clerk/VeryVerily Phil Sandifer 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take KDRGibby and Dyslexic Agnostic (God help me). Phil Sandifer 06:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken Tommstein. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tznkai

I'm recused from KDRGibby, as I am presenting evidence. I'll be tackling evidence and propsed decisions in VeryVerily, and I'll pick up whatever else is dropped (except Rajput, I think thats better left to someone a bit more experianced.)--Tznkai 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking Tommistein and Leyasu. I'd like it if someone else took ruy lopez to avoid any possible bias from working on Apeal of VeryVerily--Tznkai 07:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

dropping leyasu, picking up instantnood 3
Real life obligations came up, couldn't get away. I'll be back between this friday and the coming monday, sorry about that.--Tznkai 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Things got worse, not better. Many apologies, but I have serious family and personal obligations to take care of. It may be another week.--Tznkai 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway

19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Presently not available to perform clerk work.

[edit] Ryan Delaney

A bit overcome with schoolwork lately. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing cosmetic work on various cases, but not any opens/closes. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnleemk

I will handle whatever I feel like tackling, subject to time constraints and my own interest. I have been adding bits and pieces to the Leyasu, Boothy, KDRGibby, VeryVerily appeal and Web Ex cases. I prefer working in the workshop, but I've added and summarised evidence in some cases (most infamously in the pedo userbox case). Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into the Shiloh case, but it's rather messy, and since I might not have the time, I'm reluctant to officially clerk for it yet. Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the Tony Sidaway case -- I completed the opening, so I might as well see it through. Johnleemk | Talk 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New templates for case opening

If you follow the procedure to create cases, it's a pain because when it comes to the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages you have to edit the links to replace "name of case" with the name of the case.

I've created three new templates:

Just create your main page and then click on the relevant links (as it says in thep clerks procedure page in the section on opening cases) then call them like so from inside the new, empty, evidence, workshop or proposed decision page.

{{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Make new workshop page|My new case}}

Don't forget the subst, or it won't work.

You still have to edit the new proposed decision page to enter the number of active arbitrators and calculate the consequent quote for a majority. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briefs?

I've been floating this idea around, but I'd like to get some serious discussion going if any is necessary. In cases where users have submitted lots of confusing information, not enough information, the wrong kind of information (etc), would it be useful/proper for the clerk handling the case to write up a "brief" in a third location that summarizes and perhaps analyzes the evidence? For example, a clerk may write something like:

"Petitioner asserts that the user was engaged in a pattern of NPOV editing on article X (include some diffs from evidence page). The petitioner provides little or no evidence of failed attempts at dispute resolution, suggesting that this RFAR may only be a high-energy content dispute."

My main concern is the degree to which clerks should be doing analysis of evidence, or whether we should be doing nothing but distilling the information. Some RFARs are so confusing badly written that I think we could help by doing this, but I want to balance that against concerns that we should not be doing analysis, as that is the arb's job. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think such comments are appropriate - I've made them in the evidence summaries I did. Remember, we're also supposed to write proposed decisions. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obtaining handling and presenting evidence--what are the ground rules for clerks?

As clerks, how hands-on should we be? I don't think this has a simple answer. For instance in one case someone refers to an RfC by name, saying it's important, but doesn't link to it or explain why it's important. Should I go and investigate? This has been pointed out as evidence and no doubt the Committee will want to look at it. So at what point in going off and doing this do I become a participant?

In an early case I was involved in, Party 1 presented a jumble of diffs and a mass of polemic, attacking the defendants, who were it must be admitted very nasty pieces of work and had made his experience of Wikipedia a living hell. It was obvious that the case would fail unless the sequence of events and the identity of the participants could be understood. I spent a weekend painstakingly sifting through the history of a number of different articles, through several different disputes, piecing the whole thing together into a coherent body of evidence that could be digested easily. Is also this part of the clerk's job?

I think we need guidance on this from the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, my inclination is no, it's the AMA's job, but they're in dire shape and not really doing their job, nor have they ever. And certainly there's some amount of following-up to do - the RfC, posting checkuser requests on cases that require it, and glancing at the context of edits to make sure they're being represented fairly. (i.e. if a user is accused of making a personal attack, making sure they didn't follow up by reverting themselves a minute later with an edit summary of "I'm sorry, that was totally inappropriate of me, and I shouldn't have said that.") Phil Sandifer 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think our job is to check out the claims as we go, not to search for conflicting evidence, but its hard to say where the line is. My guess is we're going to be left using our best judgement. I think I'm going to go with evidence summaries including true false claims onto the /evidence pages and then send a short breif via the ML.--Tznkai 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to repeat myself, but I think the idea of doing briefs has every upside and no downside, because we would be very hands-on at organizing information, but the original statement from the party would still be visible in its original form. I would like to see a standard format for doing this, either on a different sub-page or as a separate section of the same page. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well we could raise briefs with the committee but I don't know whether they'd wear them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New arbitrators unrecusing from older cases

I've had one case of an arbitrator (Charles Matthews) who has voted in an older case from which he had been auto-recused. He's allowed to do this of course, it's up to him, but in some cases this may affect the calculation of the number required for majority acceptance of a proposal. I've asked Charles to raise this and discuss it with the other arbitrators on their list, so they can agree on how to proceed. In the meantime, please be careful during closing and raise specific queries to the arbitrators before publishing the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Timeline in userbox case and SPUI

Some people have been updating the timeline in the evidence of the userbox case. Thanks. I recused myself from this case recently after deleting SPUI's userpage and protecting it from deletion. I'd appreciate it if someone could update the timeline with some basic details of this affair and the edit war that developed over SPUI's userpage--it's particularly important to get this right because a userpage has been deleted and that isn't a step that is taken lightly. My brief note about the deletion and request for review is on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The summary for the userbox case

In leaving, User:Radiant! singled out the clerks' office's summary of trhe userbox case for criticism, but gave nothing specific. Steve Block has offered this elaboration of some apparent discrepancies in the account. This seems to be valid criticism to me, but I'm recused in this case. Would someone please take a look and correct any errors or slanted wording in the account? --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox closure--it's important to get our ducks in a row

On the userbox decision, there are some potential ambiguities and they need to be tightened up. I won't be doing the close myself because I'm recused, but somebody will need for to work this out.

For example, Ashibaka is first to remain desysopped for two weeks after the case closes, "after which his sysop powers are to be restored" (5), but in a later motion he "may reapply for administrative privileges" after two weeks (5.1). There are mutually incompatible motions, and both passed (the former by 13 votes to 0, the latter by 9 votes to 0, with three abstentions). 8 votes is a pass in this case. Which is to be applied?

In Carnildo's case, a similar sequence occurs. Both motions passed but the latter is more stringent and passed by a smaller margin (a third motion in his case failed).

The El_C and Karmafist cases are relatively straightforward. Only one of the motions proposed has passed in each of those cases, and this is the one that should be applied. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators have specified which motions they prefer as a first choice. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If I'm reading the procedure for closing correctly, the motion with the most net votes applies in case of a discrepancy. Although maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's not do it unless explicitly asked to do it by the arbitrators

Because this is a very controversial case and it's moved unusually quickly, the Committee is considering having an arbitrator perform the close--someone who has been party to the discussions on the mailing list and has a sense of the feel of the committee on this. I agree, and suggest that we hold off unless explicitly requested to perform the close ourselves. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry of Ruy Lopez

The Ruy Lopez case was closed and merged into the VeryVerily appeal. From what I can tell, everyone and his mother believe that Ruy Lopez has used a bunch of sockpuppets, but I haven't been able to find much documentation to this effect. (the one example I did find is cited in FOF1). Help would be appreciated Raul654 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked and dug into the available evidence, but there's nothing "hard" indicating sockpuppetry. Most evidence that is available is circumstantial. Johnleemk | Talk 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll take the circumstantial too - David has already confirmed at least one of hte sockpuppets. Raul654 02:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I did what I could. I guess I'll now go and open some cases. If there are any to open... Johnleemk | Talk 09:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping the checkuser page clean

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser is a mess. Many requests have been answered, others have not. Could someone go through and delete any of them that have been answered more than 24 hours ago? Raul654 23:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Poke - again, could somebody take a look at this? Raul654 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I archived until about 2/3rds down the page. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I did everything. I find it a bit troubling that a lot of stuff from January was put in the March archive even though the requests were never rejected nor resolved. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Ril- 2

I think it would be a general help if a clerk could merge all the relevant Ril-related material from KJV to the new case. Thanks. Dmcdevitยทt 05:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Clerks_Administration_Archive1_63b0.html"