Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Closing of Privatemusings, ban missing

Please see this notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about an apparently missing 90-day ban in the Privatemusings case, closed today by User:AGK.

User:Mercury spotted the apparent error, and has altered the final decision and blocked. To me it seems to be in order, but please check it. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Willing to Help

I am willing to help maintain WP:RFArb. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bluemarine editing outside unblock conditions

Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been editing mainspace and talk pages in violation of his unblock condition, "specifically to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine; report other edits to WP:AC/CN". Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He has been reblocked until 21:44, 12 January 2008 by User:Penwhale. I have advised Bluemarine to only edit the arbcom case when it ends. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your advice to Bluemarine is correct. Penwhale restored my 7 day block (a reduction from the original indef one). When that block expires, surely he should be free to edit (non-disruptively) any page he likes. WjBscribe 16:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a misinterpretation of the conditions surrounding Bluemarine's current status, regarding this ability to edit. Up until the block immediately prior to his being unblocked for participation in the BlueM. case, he was under a restriction, in that he was not permitted to edit outside of the Arbitration case pages. Since that block, should it still stand, would not have expired at this point in time, the restriction on his being permitted to edit only the Arbitration pages still stands, no? Thus, he has not, apparently, been issued any incorrect advice: he violated the conditions of his unblock, and thus the remainder of his block has been restored. Perhaps I've missed something here, but that's my initial supposition. Anthøny 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
After going into more detail, I've noticed WJB's complaint: Rlevse, you've cautioned against editing after that block expires. However, as I explained above, the restriction would have expired at that point, and thus, as Will says above, he is able to edit outside the Arbitration pages. Anthøny 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
AGK and WjBscribe are correct, when the block expires, Bluemarine is not under additional restrictions. Thatcher 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood. I've noted the correct ruling on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries ;) Anthøny 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One would think that for failure to follow the instructions not to edit anywhere else, that the block would be extended even further than the original week by WJBscribe, if not to indefinitely. -- ALLSTARecho 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems punitive rather than preventative, does it not? One week should be enough to prevent any further disruption, through violation of the temporary editing restriction, and any longer really isn't necessary in short-term purposes. Just my thoughts. Anthøny 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering that people are blocked in increments for failing to follow rules, his editing outside the restrictions placed on his unblock is nothing more than repeated policy violations in a long history of violations. Had this been reported at ANI, it surely would have received a much longer reinstatement of the block. It was reported here however because editors were told to report it here if they found he was editing anywhere else. But I digress. I just think that for someone who couldn't even follow the restrictions of their unblock, he isn't going to follow show any restraint of this restored for the same amount of time block when it ends in 2 days. -- ALLSTARecho 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) Perhaps, but then again this is, theoretically, only a "re-block": the user violated the restrictions issued on him once, and so the block was reset. Measure one. I sense that, should he undertake further disruptive behaviour, post-the expiry of the block, then the gradual incrementation you discussed previously would, I imagine, be implemented. I simply hold the view that slapping anything more than a reinstatement of the block or (going a little further) a reset of it would be a little hard-handed. Then again, this is not the most beneficial editor we have ever experienced, and his behaviour has demonstrated disruptive habits and tendencies: I do not defend that, by any means. Anthøny 18:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But for the instruction, ". . .report other edits to WP:AC/CN," I most likely would have placed this at ANI (My only pause is that there are some 70 other incidents on that page already). Also if memory serves, there were 4 incidents concerning BM, which were independently filed at ANI just prior to the Arbcom case. R. Baley (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to your last comment, I imagine that the location for reporting such violations has shifted to here simply because they involve an active Arbitration case. Anthøny 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not complaining 'bout the locale. Though I have to say that I was a little confused at first about where to put it at first (main page or talk page). There are no instructions, but I suppose that's because this page is mainly used by clerks for clerking. R. Baley (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that the block is to prevent the user terrorising other users with legal threats, especially on user pages. The block is indefinite (not infinite) because Matt hasnt cooperated with the boundaries set out, and before he should be trusted to edit freely, he needs to explicitly acknowledge that his edits did violate WP:LEGAL and that he will not do them again. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Infinite and indefinite, as far as blocks with the MediaWiki software are concerned, are the same thing. Infinite is what is used when making blocks with MediaWiki; some users have simply tweaked the system messages so that indefinite is used in its place. They mean the same thing: no specified expiry time. Anthøny 13:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is what, his 3rd legal threat against Wikipedia not to mention the one made against Wjhonson on Wikipedia? Even if he does explicityly acknowledge that his edits did violation WP:LEGAL and that he will not do them again, didn't he acknowledge that and say he wouldn't do them again the last 2 times? Site ban him altogether and let's move on. He's playing everybody and wasting our time. He has no intentions on going through this Arbcom case civilly and regardless of the outcome, he's not going to abide by even that unless forced to, ie: banned and can't do nothing about that. ALLSTARecho 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If Bluemarine wants to contribute to his case, he can email Arbcom or a clerk. Other than that, this is not really the place to discuss the block. Thatcher 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Per the subject's request, I would recommend simply deleting the Matt Sanchez article. I also support the block of Bluemarine (talk · contribs)
I also recommend a block of the Wjhonson (talk · contribs) account to prevent further disruptive behavior. It was Wjhonson's recent post, where he provided a link to his off-wiki site with an enormous amount of personal information and further defamation of Sanchez,[1] that provoked Sanchez's latest outburst. If Wjhonson wants to collect that kind of dirt on people on his own time, that's fine, but he shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a way to get the word out about a URL with so many privacy violations and speculative defamation. And especially if Sanchez is considering a lawsuit against Wjhonson, I think it's a bad idea for us to be hosting links to Wjhonson's site. --Elonka 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The deletion is not up to us, and if you are concerned about Wjhonson, add evidence to the case. This entire discussion is really outside the scope of this page. Thatcher 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Case participant behavior

Clerks working on cases involving unduly obstreporous participants may find solace in this principle from a recently decided case, and have occasion to cite it from time to time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One assumes Brad meant to link to here? If so, that is indeed comforting :) Anthøny 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct. The final version is even nicer. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rlevse quit/break

Some of you may have noticed Rlevse's talk page and user page where he says he's quit wiki. That ANI thread seemed to be the last straw, but there were other things. I actually know him, in the real world. I've talked to him about this. He's very upset and frustrated. I don't know if he'll come back or not. He did say he really enjoyed being an arbcom clerk; that's why I've posted here, I wanted to let you know that. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. That is indeed very unfortunate, but I think Rlevse needs some room to breath, at the moment. Anthøny 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure he appreciates your support. I'll tell him. He's apparently responding to emails if anyone wishes to contact him. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right, tell him to take as long a break as he likes — he deserves it. I hope to see him back here whenever he feels ready.--Phoenix-wiki 16:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse should also understand that he can resume doing the clerking without getting involved in the enforcement side of things, which is much more stressful. As Thatcher reminded on ANI yesterday, they really are very separate functions, although sometimes the same people tend to get involved with both. Anyway, I hope he is doing well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've emailed him telling him to take as long as he wants off and he might come on IRC in the meantime. I'm sure he has enough emails telling him to come back.--Phoenix-wiki 16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse said "arbs and clerks are the ones most likely to work the issue", so I'm sure he's aware any admin can work AE cases; he did not say "arbs and clerks only...". But it does appear mostly those who work AE are those already involved in arb cases. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. I would like to continue clerking if that's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back :) FloNight (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, Rlevse.
On the subject of the enforcement noticeboard, I recall opposing its being set up in early 2006, on the grounds that the existing adminstrators' noticeboards were adequate for the purpose. Later on, as one of the few active arbitration clerks in mid-2006 I found myself involved in enforcement issues, somewhat against my feeling that the clerk role is incompatible with the enforcement role. Few other administrators watched the page, that always seemed to be the case. Perhaps we should consider merging it back to the main administrators' noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alice case

Does it need closing/archiving? Orderinchaos 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Done before I even saw this. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small Inconsistency

I noticed that this statement here on the noticeboard: "This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of January 25, 2008, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date)." I think this needs a tweak, as the list below it has 13 arbitrators. Either the notice or the list must have a problem that someone might like to fix. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland: Non-clerking discussion moved here from main page

There is an unblock request by Mantanmoreland. I have suggested a modification of the request that would make it sit better with the community, I think. It might help if an arbitrator or clerk attended to that unblock request, as there would be less likelihood of wheel warring. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Doc Glasgow already unblocked against the developed AN consensus. Lawrence § t/e 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think there was community concensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Let's not repeat here the discussion ongoing in at least two other places. Clerks please hold off on closing for now pending resolution of the current situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)