Case clerks: MJL ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Firefly ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh ( Talk) & Moneytrees ( Talk) & Z1720 ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) All users are expected to reply within a reasonable amount of time when they are the subject of a noticeboard inquiry, and for administrators this is a core expectation. Failure to reply for a lengthy period of time while being otherwise available is a prima facie violation of administrator accountability.
2) Administrators of long tenure are held to no higher or lower a standard than any other administrator. Administrators are not assessed by when they became administrators, but with how they have served in their time as administrators. Some administrators make more use of their tools, some little, and some none, but all administrators are expected to be familiar with current policies, guidelines, and best practices surrounding administrator tools they use. Administrators who misapprehend these principles are expected to correct themselves when alerted.
1) See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Evidence § Evidence presented by Tamzin
2) The closing statement of the 2022 AE thread explicitly noted that WP:ADMINACCT may have been violated, but that the venue lacked recourse to do anything about it. While ArbCom's jurisdiction over ADMINACCT was noted, no one brought the matter before ArbCom for review.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
The following text is appended to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee:
If a request's outcome includes a sanction against an administrator (other than a logged warning) or a finding that an administrator has fallen short of conduct or accountability standards, the closing administrator should make a referral; if they do not, the arbitration clerks will do so for them. The Arbitration Committee will then consider whether the evidence presented raises any issues requiring review of the administrator's conduct.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
@ Guerillero: I agree with the thrust of your evidence, but aren't the last two undeletions pretty straightforward reversals of a procedural deletion? Liz' deletion didn't represent an independent admin determining that those redirects should not exist—rather, just, that due to a technical state of affairs that was subsequently remedied, they were not at that moment useful redirects. As best I can tell, what happened was that a series of pagemoves led to the redirects being automatically retargeted to Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in the Russo-Ukrainian War, which was then moved back to the previous title Russian allegations of fascism against Ukraine without a redirect, causing those redirects to become G8-eligible. Really, they should have been retargeted rather than deleted, but then Colin M's move really shouldn't have been without a redirect either. Either way, I don't think I've ever seen an admin faulted, even when involved, for reversing a "no-fault" speedy deletion (principally U1, G6, G7, G8, or G13) where the reason for deletion had been fixed or would be fixed shortly after restoration. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed ( they|xe) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Case clerks: MJL ( Talk) & Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) & Firefly ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh ( Talk) & Moneytrees ( Talk) & Z1720 ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Purpose of the workshop
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
1)
2)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1) All users are expected to reply within a reasonable amount of time when they are the subject of a noticeboard inquiry, and for administrators this is a core expectation. Failure to reply for a lengthy period of time while being otherwise available is a prima facie violation of administrator accountability.
2) Administrators of long tenure are held to no higher or lower a standard than any other administrator. Administrators are not assessed by when they became administrators, but with how they have served in their time as administrators. Some administrators make more use of their tools, some little, and some none, but all administrators are expected to be familiar with current policies, guidelines, and best practices surrounding administrator tools they use. Administrators who misapprehend these principles are expected to correct themselves when alerted.
1) See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Evidence § Evidence presented by Tamzin
2) The closing statement of the 2022 AE thread explicitly noted that WP:ADMINACCT may have been violated, but that the venue lacked recourse to do anything about it. While ArbCom's jurisdiction over ADMINACCT was noted, no one brought the matter before ArbCom for review.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
The following text is appended to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee:
If a request's outcome includes a sanction against an administrator (other than a logged warning) or a finding that an administrator has fallen short of conduct or accountability standards, the closing administrator should make a referral; if they do not, the arbitration clerks will do so for them. The Arbitration Committee will then consider whether the evidence presented raises any issues requiring review of the administrator's conduct.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
@ Guerillero: I agree with the thrust of your evidence, but aren't the last two undeletions pretty straightforward reversals of a procedural deletion? Liz' deletion didn't represent an independent admin determining that those redirects should not exist—rather, just, that due to a technical state of affairs that was subsequently remedied, they were not at that moment useful redirects. As best I can tell, what happened was that a series of pagemoves led to the redirects being automatically retargeted to Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in the Russo-Ukrainian War, which was then moved back to the previous title Russian allegations of fascism against Ukraine without a redirect, causing those redirects to become G8-eligible. Really, they should have been retargeted rather than deleted, but then Colin M's move really shouldn't have been without a redirect either. Either way, I don't think I've ever seen an admin faulted, even when involved, for reversing a "no-fault" speedy deletion (principally U1, G6, G7, G8, or G13) where the reason for deletion had been fixed or would be fixed shortly after restoration. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed ( they|xe) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)