Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's change to the confict of interest clause

I've performed the following change (shown in bold):

In any case, no clerk should have anything to do with a case in which he or she is a participant, except to the extent that he or she participates as a participant. Clerks who wish to make a statement in a case, or provide evidence, must refrain from acting as a clerk with respect to that case. This does not prejudice his right to perform cosmetic refactoring of evidence and workshop pages, as is the right of any editor. In unclear situations, the head clerk or the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

Editors, whether participants or not, can reorganize evidence and workshop pages. An editor should not be forbidden to carry out such cosmetic tasks simply because he is both a participant in the case and a clerk. So if X is involved in a case and as a clerk cannot act as a clerk, this doesn't stop him, say, renumbering proposed findings of fact in the workshop, or changing links in an evidence page to correct diff links. Such editing should always be done with care, whoever does it. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ay. Theres the rub." Wm. Shakespeare. I'll be working on some kind of language addressing this and any other relative points. Stay tuned... Hamster Sandwich 01:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as long as you remain aware that a recused clerk must have the same editing rights as he would have if he were not a clerk. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

new template

placed on talk page since I am not a "official clerk" and it is unclear whether other people are allowed to post even comments on the main clerks page

The new template looks nice but since it seems to linebreak after each usage (can't be used directly next to a previous one) so it's screwing up the currentasks template, I'm sure there's an easy way to fix it so it allows one to be placed next to another so that it works correctly but I don't know how. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, Jdforrester's change to the arbcomopentasks template to put it into it's own column seems to work well to make it work. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Are we expected to recuse from cases we're provoding evidence in? I've been trying to restrict myself to summarizing other's, or was there a Sekrit Cabal order to search for more?--Tznkai 07:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly hope that any clerk would automatically recuse themselves in such a situation. Unfortunately it appears that Johnleemk is clerking a case in which he has presented evidence. I'd encourage The Mighty Clerks Office to find Another Clerk for that case. -Splashtalk 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm. That is bad-looking. I passed up that case due to past conflicts with Ruy Lopez on the 2004 Election Controversy cesspools, so I assumed he would as well if he's presenting evidence. Have you tried leaving a note on his talk page asking him about this? Phil Sandifer 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting the feeling he's presenting evidence as part of his clerking, and not declaring it as such.--Tznkai 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
He presented evidence before being named as a clerk. But again, why are we debating this point instead of taking the straightforward, good faith approach of asking him? Phil Sandifer 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thats just my confusion. I'll ask when he's back off vacation--Tznkai 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I just asked him, but his userpage indicates a lack of internet at present. I'm inclined to think also that the presentation of fresh evidence is not part of a clerks job; they're not detectives after all. (They can present fresh evidence of course, but should then recuse as a clerk.) -Splashtalk 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, the clarification of unclear evidence and spotty evidence seems an important part of the job. After all, the arbcom is not a game to be won by whoever is most adept at presenting evidence. If there's something massive that the evidence page is obscuring, part of the task of the clerks is to make it clear to the arbcom. Phil Sandifer 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say if you're presenting evidence you're involved in (as I am in KDRgibby) you should recuse, but thats me.--Tznkai 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. To my mind, our recusal standards are the same as the arbcom's, and certainly nobody would fault the arbcom for looking at something that wasn't on the evidence page. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You'd have to tread a little carefully. It seems different for an Arbitrator to go sleuthing after the Truth than for a clerk to do so: the clerk could finish up prosecuting the case when they weren't actually involved in the first place, as well as trying to clerk it. That doesn't apply to an Arbitrator in the same way. That said, if a clerk is patching up the evidence a little "oh, and look, there's this editor apologising over here", that'd be different. -Splashtalk 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons for clerks to be concerned about presenting new evidence in a case they are clerking as long as they have no conflict of interest. It's part of our job. Of course, some users will always complain that it appears to be a conflict, but there's nothing we can do about that, and we shouldn't let the users with the biggest tinfoil hats dictate policy to us. --Ryan Delaney talk 09:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm inclined to agree. We shouldn't unnecessarily restrict our powers of evidence-gathering and presentation, and thus risk a bad arbitration decision, where there is no conflict of interest. If we are in doubt we should consult the head clerk and the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think a clerk who gathers evidence is by definition wrong, but if his gathering evidence casts doubt on his neutrality in the mind of an involved party, he should recuse and be replaced by another clerk. Remember that involved parties have nothing to gain and everything to lose from being a vexlit, so if someone vexlits away all possible clerks he's only shooting himself in the foot. Or hand, depending on what he types with. Radiant_>|< 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The arbitrators or the head clerk can direct a clerk to recuse, so if there is a complaint and a request to recuse it shouldn't normally be a matter for the clerk at all. --Tony Sidaway 09:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaargghhh, I'm really sorry I couldn't attend to this earlier. I noticed Tznkai recused himself from cases where he had presented evidence just before I lost internet access for good, but I was very rushed and only managed to tackle a limited number of tasks. Anyway, long story short, I think Radiant has got it right. The guidelines indicate that an ex-arbitrator does not have a conflict of interest in cases where (s)he has voted in, so I naturally assumed presenting evidence or proposing stuff on the workshop would be no different. If there's an obvious conflict of interest (for instance, if Everyking was hauled in front of the arbcom again), I would naturally recuse myself, and present evidence in a non-clerking capacity. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

As a party to this case, I urgently request clerical help, The case has not been properly opened: the request is still on the main RFAR page, and discussion is still going on there. The participants have not been officially notified. Material that belongs on the evidence page is being misfiled under FIndings of Fact on the workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And lots and lots of cases struggled along just fine without clerks. The presence of clerks will only add fuel to the fire. Please show some restraint and let this stagger along on it's own. There is nothing "urgent" about any action here.
brenneman{T}{L} 11:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, am I supposed to seriously believe you don't want to douse this one with gasoline? Phil Sandifer 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look as soon as I can. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure even Aaron would admit that it would be silly to have an arbitration case without officially informing the participants. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the opening (I think). Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos angle

Regarding [1], although there are 7 acceptance votes listed, that includes Mackensen, who has resigned from the arbcomm. So for the moment I only see 6/12 acceptance votes. Am I missing something? Guettarda 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any four votes is all that's needed to open a case. And I do believe that Mackensen's votes will stand, in any case, and aren't subtracted. If it isn't opened by tomorrow, I'll do it myself when I have the time. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

As a participant in this case, I request that a clerk restore the following proposed remedies which were removed from the workshop by a non-participant.


  • 3) Tony Sidaway to be desysopped
    • Proposed by me
  • 6) Userboxes limited
    • Proposed by David Gerard
  • 8) Tony Sidaway banned
    • Proposed by me

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Got diffs of the removed stuff that you want restored?--Ryan Delaney talk 18:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
They're all here. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
And I'm requesting that they not be restored. There is no ownership of a proposed remedy, and when you edit it says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. The fact that these have been restored neither by any of the other contributors to the page nor by the arbitrars is telling. There is clearly no chance that these remedies will pass. We should not be facilitating melodramatic gestures that impede serious discussion.
brenneman{T}{L} 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying you want to be a participant in the case?
Why are you claiming that there is no chance that I will be desysopped or banned? I assure you that I know no such thing. You may mistake the proposals for "melodramatic gestures", but I on the other hand made them as serious proposals to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Find me three other editors in good standing who believe that either of these proposals will get a single "support" vote and I'll restore them myself. Since clerk fetishism is apparently the order of the day, find me one unrecused clerk who will state they believe either of these will get a single "support" vote and I'll restore them myself. - brenneman{T}{L} 23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, it doesn't matter whether we think they will get support votes. The point is that they are proposed. The proposed remedies page is for proposed remedies. You suggested that it should be removed, and then you just did it before anyone responded. I'm putting it back. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Woefull.
  • It's a workshop page, and a collaborative work area. If one editor refuses outright to work with others, that shouldn't be facilitated by "clerks" or anyone else.
  • I'd note that I suggested it's withdrawal and that no one other than Tony wanted it in.
  • Can anyone, anyone suggest a real reason for this going into am already bloated page? Other than Tony wants it in, of course, and I'll just point to WP:OWN on that.
brenneman{T}{L} 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
You're now claiming that I "refuse outright to work with others". Why must you repeatedly defend your actions with blatant falsehoods? --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

KJV

Can someone intervene in this mess? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop. There has been no clerk appointed and -Ril-, who has a history of messing up AfDs by taking possession and refactoring to suit himself has already been moving submission to where he thinks they belong. Here he moves my submissions of principle into the 'facts section' because where I've put them 'breaks up' the flow of his case [2]. The workship is becoming a mess. This problem user requires tight supervision. --Doc ask? 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please can somone intervene. Once again -Ril- refactors and relegates a 'finding of principle' to the end of the facts section, because it interupts what he has written [3]. Ril is taking WP:OWN of this workshop. --Doc ask? 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Incorporating clarifications in Netoholic 2 Arb

Was originally placed on project page. Copied here. --Tony Sidaway 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've twice asked for clarification from the Arbitrators as to the namespace and revert restrictions I was placed under. I'd like someone to take on the task of adding the Arbitrator's comments onto my Arb page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Update. I think doing this will help me avoid blocks due to literal reading of my sanctions, since the Arbitrators that commented tend to agree that I should be able to work without the literal sanctions, so long as I am not "disruptive". Here are diff links from when the clarifications were de-listed - 1 2. I don't know if you think it'd be best to quote the clarifications, or work out some wording which gets the points across. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't believe this would be appropriate: 1) Only a few arbitrators actually commented on it, and nothing was formalized with a vote. 2) I believe it would be wise to allow for a period of discussion followed by a vote (basically another RFAr) before making any clarifications to your existing remedies. 3) In the case of the first diff link, significant changes have occurred making those comments out of date; (WP:AUM is no longer policy (at least not developer-mandated policy), and is currently being rejected in the straw poll being conducted there. It would be best to open a new RFAr I think. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to comply with this request. The arbitrators who did comment know what they meant and it won't hurt Netoholic to have those clarifications copied to the decision page. If other arbitrators want to add more, they can do so. --Tony Sidaway 06:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, some ArbCom members said that if his changes were clearly beneficial and not disruptive then a "common sense" exception could be made to not block him. That doesn't really seem like a 'change' to me... such exceptions are always made. The mystery is why it keeps getting brought up as a 'defense' of his clearly harmful and disruptive edits. He has repeatedly run bots which haven't been approved (or even discussed), at rates faster than is supposed to be allowed, to make changes to templates on dozens of pages... which have caused many of them to break and massive disruption as people then try to change things back or use the rewritten template the old way and find it no longer works. Yet he has never been blocked for this... despite it being a blockable offense even without the ArbCom ruling preventing him from working in template space at all. He keeps fighting to preserve the 'hiddenStructure' method of handling conditional text despite the fact that it provides no real benefit over other methods and simply does not work for users in a number of different minority situations (blind users, text browsers, non-English Wikipedias, et cetera). Yet whenever he gets blocked for that it is quickly overturned by one of a handful of admins who seem (by their statements) to be affronted at having been over-ruled on the WP:AUM issue. We shouldn't be going out of our way to make Wikipedia harder for people to use just because some people are upset to find that they were wrong about a developer/server issue.
The use of these vague 'do not block him if he is being helpful' statements as cover for actions which would normally be blockable even without an ArbCom ruling is a 'bad thing' <tm>. --CBDunkerson 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this case, but if any of that is true, you shouldn't need an Arbcom ruling to justify a block anyway. Just block him as disruptive and be done with it. Also, the Clerk's office is not an appropriate place to discuss this sort of thing. Maybe WP:AN would be better. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course the original ArbCom included a mentorship period in which he was not to be blocked for regular disruptions, and he likes to twist things around so that the blocking admin is acting outside of policy, only acting out of bias, etc. etc. It would be good to have an official word on what, exactly, he can be blocked for. (Although ideally, his ban against editing templates at all would be put fully back in place, as being disruptive about templates seems to be the only thing he does here.) — Omegatron 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker

I'm recused from this current application because I've recently blocked a person involved in the dispute (Leyasu). Unfortunately Deathrocker and Leyasu are bickering a lot and Leyasu tells me that Deathrocker has interfered with his (Leyasu's) statement. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved could intervene and tidy things up a bit. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia_talk%7EArbitration_Committee_Clerks_Noticeboard_Archive_1_8e12.html"