![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
I request that either authors or clerks remove the bright yellow highlighting from their posts here. Aside from being poor from an accessibility perspective if the correct aspect ratios between text and background colours are not maintained, it would be good to avoid the situation where everyone starts highlighting things and the purpose of it is defeated. I think we, as a group, can read the posts and make our own conclusions about what is most important, or failing that, we can use formatting options such as bold and italics. -- Deskana ( talk) 09:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Over 1,300 words and still not yet addressed the BLP issue. If he doesn't deign to return to trim it to a reasonable length, is there anything in 'crats power to do something about it? - SchroCat ( talk) 06:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@ GoldenRing: Smallbones's statement is now over 1,512 words - over three times the 500-word limit (and it still fails to address the BLP infraction). Do the clerks not take any action when I one is so far out of line? - SchroCat ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Bradv and GoldenRing: Since his initial statement, Smallbones has edited his statement five times four of which been to lengthen it. This isn't some well-intentioned newcomer who doesn't understand the processes, this is the self-appointed editor of the Signpost who has either managed to miss both the huge red box at the top of the page (not only in this case, but in every other case the Signpost has covered) and the warning he received more than a week ago, or is intentionally thumbing his nose at every other party and participant by demanding he be given three times the space anyone else is allowed. If he's not willing to shorten his statement, can someone shorten it for him? ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Can I replace the existing restrictions with the ability to move pages, create DAB page and redirects. It was suggested by SilkTork ( talk · contribs) that I would be expected to have a 5% (or less) failure at RM. I pointed out that RM is for controversial moves, not uncontroversial moves to aren't relevant to that. It was then suggested that I use RMT and I now have 108 edits at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but only 4 of these have been contested (I think) and out of those only 1 failed so I think I have passed that, see User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 49#New articles. Also at the last ARCA it was agreed to allow me to create pages outside the mainspace, given that DAB pages and redirects don't fall under article even if in the mainspace, see Wikipedia:What is an article? I think if I'm allowed to create pages outside the mainspace, its not that different to allow DAB pages and redirects in the mainspace. I am requesting to allow the page moves and DAB pages/redirects so that I can use them for housekeeping at for the bot created articles, see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot and User talk:SilkTork#Bot created articles. Obviously if we're fine with removing the restrictions all together then that's great but this would be fine for the next 6 months while we do the bot created civil parishes since as pointed out we're taking it 1 step at a time.
The suggested changed are:
In the BOTREQ mentioned by Crouch, Swale he has asked for 700+ articles to be created by a bot rather than by himself, which seems to me to be an attempt to outsource the creation and avoid his current ban. They have been asked to gain consensus for the BOTREQ, which he has tried to do, but not had any significant response. I note that previous discussions here have concern[s] that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs
which is exactly what the BOTREQ is to do. He has suggested an initial run of 6 articles per day, which is a lot more that the current 1 AfC per week restriction. All of the suggestions to his restrictions above make the assumption that the mass article creation goes ahead, so that needs to be considered here.
Spike 'em (
talk)
08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, when I wrote in " Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot"
"Smaller batches" is a way of having a better chance at getting support when things could potentially be contentious. It does not negate the need for prior consensus before creation, but it might make consensus easier to get. Going "I want to create 1000 articles tomorrow!" vs going "Hey, about about we have a bot create 10 articles as drafts as a subpage of WP:PLANTS, see what the feedback is on them, if they need more work, etc... so the next 10 are easier to handle, ... and then we'll see if we get to a point where we're comfortable having the remaining articles get created directly in article space" or similar.
Note the it might. People may decide this is too close to violating a page creation ban for comfort. Or maybe they'd be open to such a bot creating articles in the project space if someone other than you reviews the article before moving into mainspace. Or maybe people would be comfortable with the task as proposed.
I did not mean that lifting the page creation ban would negate the need for consensus for mass WP:MASSCREATION, either through a bot or a meatbot, the distinction between the two being pointless for WP:MEATBOT purposes. I say this part for the benefits of User:Crouch, Swale, in case they thought a lift on restriction was sufficient to ensure WP:BOTREQUIRE #4.
Generally speaking, the BAG is of the opinion that making a WP:BOTREQ is not a violation of a page creation ban/restriction, since a) the request would be reviewed to ensure community consensus independently of the requester b) pages would be created by someone other than the requester c) if concerns related to using a bot to circumvent the ban existed, those would be addressed during the BRFA. I say this bit for the benefit of ARBCOM, in case they think that making a BOTREQ to have a bot create articles is (by itself) somehow nefarious behaviour. It is also the first time User:Crouch, Swale makes such a request, which may or may not matter.
I say both the above bits as a BAG member, purely for context and without prejudice against lifting, or maintaining, or expanding the ban, on which I have no opinion as I have not reviewed the current ban nor the relevant facts that led to it. Should a WP:BRFA be filed, BAG will review that the task complies with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:BOTREQUIRE (#4) and WP:MASSCREATION, as applicable at the time of review. A lift of the ban would imply fewer restrictions on the task, maintaining the ban would imply more restrictions on it, but in all cases the bot's task and mode of operation (if approved) would be subject to community consensus. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
However we seem to be somewhat in a situation where we can't get consensus for the bot request due to the current ban and we can't get consensus on what to do with my restrictions because we don't have consensus for the bot request.Maybe. But what I was getting at in that discussion was that consensus was unclear for the task because only you expressed support for it. This was meant to be an invitation to go to a Wikiproject and start a discussion there to flesh out the idea, and if there was buy in, BAG would then be in a position to evaluate if there was consensus for something. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned: the bot request is entertained to the extent that there is a theoretical path forward. However, as of now the bot logic is so premature that no bot coder would take the task because no one knows what they are being asked to code exactly, and a village pump discussion is likely bound to fail because of the page creation restrictions combined with the ill-defined logic of the bot. These are theoretically surmountable hurdles. For instance, if there's a clear bot logic proposed, which results in articles that the community would deem appropriate. Or that a bot coder shows interest in the task and is willing to work with Crouch, Swale and with other WikiProjects to figure out how exactly to build such articles out of existing resources. But we aren't there yet. Right now, there's not even a "The bot would go to this <database>, and use <this data> in this <exact manner>." Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"crapflood[ing] the wiki with stubs". As I also said there:
"At a minimum this would need BAG approval and that of the projects concerned (bold added), yes. I'd also like to see an explicit statement from Crouch, Swale that they would STOP the second ANYONE asked them to - for the protection of the wiki, and the protection of Crouch, Swale from reimposition of blocks."
I also share the concern expressed by Spike 'em : "seems ... to be an attempt to outsource the creation and avoid his current ban"
. I'm still uneasy about Crouch, Swale exercising sufficient judgement in this area, given the history. I don't think amending restrictions to facilitate mass creation is a good idea here - I'm basically uneasy about CS being involved in mass creation processes in any way at this point. --
Begoon
20:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
so that I can use them for housekeeping at for the bot created articlesand
this would be fine for the next 6 months while we do the bot created civil parishes. It's just pure tunnel vision.I had hoped that the slow adjustment of restrictions, including the article creation through AfC, might help Crouch, Swale, understand why his previous behavior was problematic. I hoped that working one by one on drafts of reasonable length might help him understand the level of work he was asking other editors to undertake in dealing with his large amount of micro-stubs. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have been the case. There still seems to be no awareness of why others might be concerned about the creation of approximately a thousand such stubs (either manually or by a bot) and the accompanying retitles, redirects, and disambiguation pages. On that basis, I can't do anything other than decline this request. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
While I think that the activity level of arbitrators is a legitimate topic for discussion, I respectfully suggest that the topic would be better placed on this talk page instead of on the case request page. -- Pine (✉) 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There are a few different places that I could put this, but I think that here is a good place to start. I am trying to avoid prejudicing any outcome of what may or may not be accepted as a case for arbitration.
Regardless of whether the case is accepted, I think that there should be clarification of whether the community wants to explicitly include Signpost articles within the scope of the current BLP policy, or to grant a narrow exception for investigative reporting regarding Wikimedia matters such as volunteers, WMF or affiliate staff, and WMF or affiliate board members.
My recollection is that historically the community has accepted some investigative reporting by The Signpost that included reporting negative information regarding living people that was not backed by other published sources, but recent events make me think that community consensus has turned against the idea of The Signpost doing this type of reporting. While I think that the narrowing of scope would lead to a loss of public benefit from having certain types of investigative reporting, the change of scope would also reduce the risk to volunteers who write for The Signpost who could be willing to take personal legal risks for what they think is the greater good, and also reduces the risk of The Signpost publishing information that later turns out to be false and negative regarding living people and thus decreasing the community's trust for the publication.
I don't know whether I should ping individual people to ask for advice about the best procedure for asking this policy question of the community. I would like to request input from arbitration clerks and/or arbs regarding whether I should wait for the case to be accepted or declined before proceeding further with asking the community for a policy decision. I am also pinging User:Smallbones due to his current status as Signpost Editor-in-Chief. -- Pine (✉) 18:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Smallbones. I don't want to encourage any further litigation of this particular Signpost article, but I'm glad that you agree that a discussion about rules for The Signpost is in order. I am okay with waiting for awhile, but in the meantime I encourage you and everyone else who writes for The Signpost to be very cautious about writing anything that could start an argument about whether something is a BLP violation. I agree that other people made comments outside of The Signpost which I think are questionable, but I would not encourage The Signpost to use others' actions that test the limits of acceptability as a guide for what The Signpost should also be allowed to publish. Now that the RFAR has been declined, would you be okay with moving this discussion to one of the newspaper's talk pages? Thanks for the very large amount of effort that you are exerting in keeping the Signpost alive and relevant. -- Pine (✉) 04:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This should be done in conjunction with a set of overall community-approved guidelines for the Signpost. Many of the conflicts that arise involve confusion and disagreement over whether or not concepts such as WP:BLP, WP:OWN and editorial independence are applicable to its articles. Since many of us seem to forget about it or assume that the issues are resolved until the next brouhaha, perhaps folks who are active at the Signpost could write up a proposal and find a good time to present it to the community. – dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
In the
declined case about a Signpost article, some of statements are marked with {Signpost}
and (Signpost)
. What do these marks signify in the context of the request for arbitration? —
andrybak (
talk)
18:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So it looks like WMF said it's cool for Arbcom to review the Fram case. The previous arbcom request on this was messy as it also included reviewing WMF. It seems too obvious but nobody was done it.....a request for Arbcom to review matters that led to the WMF ban on Fram and determine the appropriate course of action regarding Fram. I'm sure that there is currently a lot of contemplation on the general topic by Arbcom members, but this would would crystallize things to a question put forward in the standard/official manner. Would it be crazy or a bad idea to make this request? If not, I would be happy to make it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators, I ask that you please resolve to ask the Foundation whether if in the future they would like to propose sanctions limited to the English Wikipedia or in duration, the User:WMFOffice would agree to open an arbitration request like anyone else, providing that such cases may be disposed of by motion when secret evidence is sufficiently compelling.
Alternatively, should the WMFOffice be privileged with the trust to make requests of the Committee by asking on this page? EllenCT ( talk) 22:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The standard header for clarifications appears to say nothing about word limits. Could someone put me right if there is, as I'm probably going over? Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Arbitrators, if you want to have a case based on an alternative request, please either make a motion setting forth the particulars and let each arbitrator vote with reasons, or make a new case request. What you should not do is pour inflammable liquids on an already heated situation by using weird process or back channels. Your trust level with the community is at a low; do try to bring it back up. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Seeking a confirmation that my topic ban does not preclude me from posting diffs or links to pages covered by my ban for the purpose of identifying user conduct in a forum such as this? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't have an account and I need to file an arbitration claim for something. This page shows that it's protected, which effectively bars me from filing a claim; meaning, that regular editors/users have access to arbitration, whereas I do not. 173.24.39.178 ( talk) 21:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wikipedia Humanities Desk: an admin closed my question.
I think it was a strawman fallacy. There's a reason why my topic was "In your jurisdiction, can bus drivers have schizophrenia?" Because I know I wasn't asking about my specific jurisdiction. And my example was the reasoning on how I came up with that question, encountering a talking bus driver. So my thread was not "does anyone think this bus driver has schizophrenia?" Just because I mentioned my example inside my paragraph doesn't change my thread title, even though I would welcome people to discuss either subject. 170.76.231.162 ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC). 170.76.231.162 ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've been advised to email a complaint to arbcom-en. [3] Can I mail HTML, e.g. a cut and paste of wikitext? Or should I reformat it into text or a PDF or something? I've been working on it in my sandbox without saving it, so it's all wikitext. Vashti ( talk) 07:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
'''text''' that contains [[markup]] like ''this''
) is unlikely to be easy to comprehend, though. Plain text is also fine. A PDF is probably not so useful.
GoldenRing (
talk)
10:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Beeblebrox at 23:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
In several recent cases, clerks have taken what seems to me to be a very heavy-handed approach to policing proposed decision talk pages, enforcing absolute conformity of section headers and only allowing themselves or arbs to participate in threaded discussion, absolutely banning it for us "lesser" users. When I questioned this, SilkTork directed me to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Statement and evidence management as the policy that supports this practice. The problem there is that it doesn't. There is no mention of any rules for talk pages. This appears to be a policy that doesn't actually exist, yet the clerks are strongly enforcing it at the apparent direction of the committee.
While I completely understand the need for controls in initial statements and evidence pages, talk pages, anywhere in project space, are used by the community to discuss the project. In this case the committee seems to be enforcing standards that were just made up out of thin air and are not documented on-wiki. Given that in this most recent case the enforcement of unknown rules based on invisible criteria was a central problem, I strongly feel this issue needs to be brought out in the open and whatever process that was used to develop it needs to be made transparent.
Failing that, the committee needs to accept that there is no such rule and instruct the clerks to stop enforcing it. Arbitration processes are complicated enough without expecting users to abide by invisible rules that apply only when the committee suddenly decides they apply on a particular page.
(The above is my initial statement, below are replies to arbitrator comments) Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"it's something that the clerk team and ArbCom has agreed upon.". And that's how new policies are made now? You guys hold a private discussion then begin enforcing a rule by adding a notice to a talk page if and when you decide it applies to that page? A rule that, again, is not in any policy I've seen. I suppose if you do things that way it is easier, you can just make up whatever rule you want and tell the community "we and the clerks agree this is a good idea, so it's now policy whenever we decide it is" but I'm pretty sure even ArbCom isn't supposed to work that way. "the fact that it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy" uh ok, is there anything else yu aren't telling us, any other secret policies in your back pocket for when you believe its convenient to spring them on the community and declare that's how it works from now on?
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
C'mon Joe. You're just making up ridiculous excuses now. "The format of a talk page is not policy" is nonsense. If there's not a policy, why is it being enforced? Why are the clerks instructed to do it that way? Arbcom is responsible for establishing its own procedures, I'm not contesting that, but they should be way more transparent than this when doing so. You can't have it both ways, either you are enforcing a new policy that you all have neglected to put in your own procedures, or there is no such rule. Invisible rules that come and go at the whim of the abs is no way to run a committee. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious if any of the arbs have any comment on the fact that the committee also exempts itself and its clerks from this policy, making them free to engage in threaded discussion if they wish while the rest of us are absolutely verboten from doing so. If there was one way to tell the community you think you are better than them, making up a policy and then exempting yourself from it would be a good start. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It has been said that the practise makes it easier to read. That must be for different readers. For me, it's much easier to understand a chronological flow of arguments, than having to go not only to the section where xyz said something, but on top when that happened. It would have been easy for my section because I didn't change my mind ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe: it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy
– Isn't this exactly the definition of unknown rules based on invisible criteria
? Committee may ask the clerk team to implementing procedures as they wish, but these needs to be spelled out in policy pages (as the basis for when and why the comments must be sectioned), and the committee needs to provide their rationale clearly (as you have done here, thank you), otherwise to those unfamiliar with arbitration proceedings on Wikipedia, it would simply appear as arbitrary enforcement. Community participations are crucial to these proceedings, and if the committee and the clerk team are starting to micromanage every arbitration page in a heavy handed manner (such as absolute conformity of section headers, like seriously?) without adequate communication, it discourages members of the community from participating further, and reduces the effectiveness of the committee from reaching informed decisions.
And these "rules" that are "documented prominently
" are randomly put in pages where the committee decides to put with no explanations given initially, and they are not spelled out explicitly in any policy pages at the moment, which I believe is what
Beeblebrox is saying; so you may want to withdraw your "disingenuous
" accusation, as that is not the example of good faith as required by
WP:ARBCOND, and comes off as rather ironic as we have only recently concluded another case centered around civility.
Alex Shih (
talk)
08:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a rule designed to stop people from talking to each other, or at least significantly interfere with their ability to do so. I don't know why you'd want to do that on a collaborative project. – Leviv ich 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As I am demonstrating here, it is now difficult for any reader who is reading this page to know whether the "I agree with Levivich" responses of other editors apply to my entire section, or just the first point above. You have to compare the damn timestamps to figure that out. This inhibits communication and understanding, not just for editors, but also for arbs.
Another problem is that we cannot create section headers for topics, to discuss different issues separately. So anyone wanting to now reply to just this second comment of mine, has to say something foolish like, "Regarding Levivich's second point", and in a few more comments, we'll have, "In response to Joe's third reply to WBG's second response to Levivich's fourth bullet point...".
If we want to get all bureaucratic about this, we can start an RfC to amend ARBPOL with "thou shalt not section talk pages", but gee it'd be better to just have a conversation with the arbs and clerks about it to find the best way forward.
Towards that end, I would ask the arbitrators: since the talk page sectioning policy procedure was implemented, how has it affected the quality and speed of decisions, compared with before the change? –
Leviv
ich
20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
No, Levivich, there is nothing preventing me from talking to you, nor interfering with my ability to do so, from down here. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Brad: Sure, the committee can decide they like long interminable back and forth, but it's difficult to see an advantage, including in surfacing what's important. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Echo Levivich. Further, Joe Roe shall not be casting random aspersions laden with a bout of bad faith. ∯WBG converse 16:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with BeebleBrox, Gerda, and Levivich. The intent certainly seems to be to squash discussion. The effect is to make it almost impossible to determine what anyone is talking about. I certainly don't find the segmented approach an improvement, indeed quite the contrary. If EditorA says "Bluebells are bad:reason" I ought to be able to counter below, rather than start my own section with "Regarding EditorA's contention that bluebells are bad, above, ...." which requires anyone trying to read the page to scroll and search for text snippets endlessly. It takes easily twice as long per reply, and the effort increases exponentially with each reply. It's absurd. Regarding Joe's assertion that ArbCom and the Clerks have decided this - really? Because while I support their right to organize cases as they see fit, I do not recognize their right to abritrarily decide that talk pages in their demense should suddenly not work as all other talk pages throughout the project. Unless someone is violating Talk page guidelines, what is the issue? I fail to see any rationale here which makes any kind of sense. And as per others' statements, above - this isn't in policy, or guidelines, or anywhere the community can see. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe the "sectioned discussion" rule originated awhile ago in the context of a few cases in which the parties were having difficulty in interacting civilly. The rule was created and enforced in a good-faith attempt to keep the arbitration pages useful, not to impair discussion on these pages. Nonetheless, in my opinion and experience it has sometimes had the opposite effect. In particular, in cases with substantial community interest, a page can grow to a large size. It then becomes difficult to make a new comment in a section near the top of the page noticeable, and important points can be missed, including potentially by the arbitrators. For this reason, without endorsing any of the comments (here or elsewhere) imputing intent to anyone, I would urge a reevaluation of this procedure, or at least perhaps using it only in specific instances where it proves necessary. (It may, however, also make sense to table this issue until January and let next year's Committee address it, especially since the impending Israel-Palestine review case may be one in which sectioning the discussion does make sense.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The intended point of PD talk pages is only for individual editors (principally parties) to bring matters relating to the PD to the attention of the Committee. It isn't intended to be a space for community discussion about the case, or the background to it, or anything else. IIRC sectioned talk pages were first introduced (or at least an early use was) for a case during my tenure on the Committee (2015), where parties to the case (possibly Gamergate or Lightbreather, but I haven't checked) were seemingly incapable of sticking to the point and not carrying on the dispute that was being arbitrated. Making it hard to have conversations was part of the point and generally it worked at reducing the disruption.
If committee members were to float ideas and put early drafts of the PD in the workshop stage then most of the commentary currently on PD talk pages could go there, where the structure better allows for it. Sectioned comment on the PD talk page would therefore not be anywhere nearly as often desirable.
All that said a space for general constructive community comment on the case, that is strongly policed for on-topicness, civility, personal attacks (and attacks against the committee), and other disruption, is probably a good thing to have. The PD talk page is the wrong venue for it though - it should be a space that the committee are encouraged to read but not required to read - anything essential to the proposed decision should be concisely addressed to the committee on the PD talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no strong opinions as to whether in your part of the wiki you have a different way of organising talkpages or not. But If you are going to have a non standard setup please use edit notices to inform people rather than hiding comments at the top of the page. Once a page runs to the sort of size your pages do, it is a reasonable expectation that a lot of people reading and commenting in one section won't remember some formatting comment at the top of the screen, they likely haven't even seen it. But they will see an edit notice, even if they are editing the fiftieth section on your page. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It helps to minimise edit conflicts and outdents. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Leaky caldron ( talk) 21:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages. We could easily add something about sectioned discussion to the clerk procedure page if that's helpful, but the fact that it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy. Frankly I think it's disingenuous of Beeblebrox to describe these as
unknown rules based on invisible criteria: the rules are documented prominently at the top of every page we decide to apply sectioned discussion to, which I'm sure he knows. – Joe ( talk) 05:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#RHaworth
What are we waiting for, a dual committee pile on? Govindaharihari ( talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please provide me an example of how the evidence limits on involved parties work for the case of years-long, protracted disputes extending across many issues, editors, and pages? To what extent have word limits been relaxed in the past? Has there been a case, specifically, where involved parties have been allowed 3,000 words of evidence (example, at least 15 different issues requiring about 200 words each)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Replacement of the blanked article creation restriction and 1 a week at AFC with the ability to only create current (and recently abolished) civil parishes, recently meaning abolished in 2000 or after. A list of such can be found at User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes, note that it lists about 717 but some are alternative names of settlements and probably don't require separate articles from the settlements so the number would probably be less than 700 so I would be creating about 4 a day which would be plenty few enough to be able to add meaningful content to each. There is also 23 missing welsh communities (the equivalent in Wales) at User:Crouch, Swale/Communities and 3 unparished areas listed at User:Crouch, Swale/List of unparished areas#Missing articles that are included in this request. I also request the removal of the page move restriction but that should be with a 1RR or 0RR restriction. I also request the ability to create redirects and DAB pages. As with the geographical NC ban lift these should be lifted with a condition that if there are problems they can be reinstated in the next 6 months, in addition all the creations can be speedily deleted (providing they don't have substantial edits from others) and the moves be reverted with a bot if there are serious concerns. The reason these should be removed is that I have had a 100% success rate at AFC (one was declined but shortly after accepted when I discussed with the reviewer). I also haven't had many requests at RMT contested and have also received a barnstar for my work with disambiguating 3 digit numbers. I understand that I have had competence problems in the past but I have clearly demonstrated that these restrictions are not needed and reflect my behavior years ago rather than today. So can I please have 1 chance see if these are indeed not needed. Similarly I have been allowed to create other pages since February but not one of the categories has been deleted or even questioned out of the hundreds that I have created.
If you think something else is better I'll provide a list of options below:
With the article creation restriction:
With the move restriction:
I still think C with the creation restriction and B with the move restriction is best but if you think we can remove altogether that's great and if you really think tighter than proposed but still looser than current then that's better than nothing. Note that I have looked into having parishes created by bots but I haven't got anywhere with that because I have been unable to put such a suggestion in a way a bot operator can interpret. If such a bot request was successful then that would drastically reduce the number of the (around) 700 needing creating to probably more like 20. If you have any suggestions or questions please do ask/suggest rather than just declining, thanks.
I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about this, there was a previous thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 18#Bot created articles.
There is still the move restriction (and similar) that I can appeal, any thoughts on removing that? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to see some indication that the creation of ~700 new stubs in this topic area is desirable
hits it on the head. In two months it will be 20 years since the founding of Nupedia, and England is not some obscure country where we just haven't got around to full coverage yet. Modern-day civil parishes
are a virtually meaningless level of minor bureaucracy which the overwhelming majority of people aren't even aware exist. If you've managed to identify 717 places in England which aren't the subject of articles it's almost certainly the case that an article isn't appropriate, and if you think there's a genuine purpose in creating one article, let alone 700+, the onus is firmly on you to explain why it's necessary we do something nobody has thought worth doing for two decades. The fact that you've repeatedly failed to grasp the point that
WP:BOLD isn't a blank cheque and that it's up to you to gain consensus if you want to make a significant change is the reason you keep getting into trouble—there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea. ‑
Iridescent
20:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I've just looked at the three example articles Crouch, Swale links to as evidence of what they are asking to be allowed to rapidly create. Risga is about an uninhabited island \which used a mix of imperial and metric units without any conversion (while a UK reader is more likely than average to be familiar with both yards and hectares we are writing for an international audience who would find this unhelpful) and is largely a series of staccato sentences rather than flowing prose. Fulford, Staffordshire appears to be a civil parish consisting of a single village (but this is not clear from the article) and so the article (also full of staccato sentences) is really about the settlement not the parish. South Huish is an article ostensibly about the village and the CP of the same name that also includes two other settlements with articles, but mostly seems to be a prose(ish) listing of things located nearish the village or which have "Huish" or "South Huish" in the name (the second sentence of the Features section is about a school in a place the first section says is adjacent to (not part of) the parish. The remainder of the article contains facts, some interesting, but I'm not sure whether any of them relate to the village, the wider parish, or just happen to be nearby? If these are examples of your best work then you need to improve your writing skills and these articles before creating any more.
Also, as noted by many other people, you need to get consensus for the mass creation of articles first before getting permission to be the one to create them. The only discussion about this I've been able to find is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 1#Insane parish project by user:Morwen in late 2005, which was nothing to do with you. Indeed I see only contribution to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography by you, which was a multi-posted message about bot-creating articles about listed buildings. When I found where this was actually being discussed, it seemed you didn't really engage with the feedback you were getting.
All in all I have strongly recommend that this request is declined. I would also suggest the committee consider a restriction that prevents another appeal until after Crouch, Swale has gained consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography (or in a discussion an an appropriate alternative location that was advertised to that project) that the large scale creation of articles about civil parishes is desirable, has demonstrated the ability (within the existing restriction) to write articles about civil parishes that have good quality prose and are more than stubs. Any appeal before these have been achieved should be summarily rejected by the first arb to see it without the need to waste the time of the committee and community. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, civil parishes are a significant group of entities in England, and worthy of encyclopedia articles. I systematically resolved the red links in Civil parishes in Cumbria in 2016-17 by creating many short articles such as Preston Patrick and Kirklinton Middle. A civil parish has a population recorded in the census, usually a parish council (or occasionally a share in one with adjacent parish(es)), and a list of listed buildings (sometimes there's already a separate article about that), and has significance for its current residents, and for historians studying the area. I don't know the whole background to Crouch, Swale's restrictions, but a permission to carefully create articles on this finite set of well-defined topics seems a sensible step on the route to rehabilitation. Maybe 1/day (plus associated redirects and any necessary dab page creations) for a trial period? Pam D 18:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
SoWhy's opinion means that there is clearly, at the moment, no consensus that all of them should have individual articles: on the contrary, it only indicates that the consensus is not unanimous. I think the existence of articles for 93% of a group indicates a consensus that they are notable, unless you can detect some characteristic which makes the 7% different from the others. Pam D 23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have watched this form the sidelines with some bemusement, and I wasn't going to get involved because it seemed a foregone conclusion. For the record though, I completely support PamD's suggestion of a trial period. I wasn't involved in the early history regarding Crouch, and there's no doubt that his behaviour back then fully justified the lengthy ban. In the two years since he's been back on-wiki though, there is nothing to suggest a return to socking or disruptive stub creation. I have mainly encountered him at RM discussions, and while we don't always agree, he knows his sources and can make a well-argued policy-based position. If the missing parish/village articles (and nobody here has actually argued that they don't meet GNG) are created along the lines of the three articles mentioned above, I think that would be a net positive for the wiki. Sure they're short, and the prose could be improved, but Nobody has suggested they should be deleted, and as Crouch says, his AFC creations are generally accepted. The proposal by Pam to allow 1 per day, with a promise to make them substantial, not just one line stubs, and see what kind of output it produces, is an excellent one. Thryduulf Worm That Turned I respect you a lot, and I voted for you in the recent ArbCom elections as the kind of quality arbs we need, but I think you've got this one wrong and urge you to reconsider. Everyone deserves a second chance. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
6 months is more than enough time). You seem to be following a tight schedule in which you are trying to whittle away at your restrictions—there is plenty of editing you can be doing while staying within your restrictions, and coming to us so regularly with requests to allow you to perform some new kind of task (in this case, one that is not clearly even wanted by the community) is quickly becoming old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined. Going forward, he may not request relaxation of his restrictions more frequently than once per year, with the next request not taking place prior to 1 January 2021. In addition, he should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions.
Enacted - CodeLyoko talk 21:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already.Crouch, Swale, you need to spend more time editing productively within your restrictions, and demonstrate that you actually understand why the sanctions were imposed. Appealing your sanction with the intention of mass-creating 700 articles without any kind of prior consensus is not a good step in that direction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like to make a comment regarding the case of Kudpung ( talk · contribs) currently underway, but I apparently cannot do so. I believe this may be because I am not a registered user. Is it impossible for me to make a comment on this case? Many thanks. 75.191.40.148 ( talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf: Thanks. Here is my comment. If anything is deemed unrelated or unacceptable I would appreciate clarification so I can fix it.
In the Request for Arbitration concerning Kudpung, it appears that several of the statements are between 800 and 1200 words long. Kudpung's own statement is, by my count, 1037 words, but I think that it is reasonable for the defendant to be allowed a longer statement. It is annoying to some of us who have carefully kept our statements to the specified 500 words to see considerably longer statements. Since it appears that the case is about to be accepted, there is no need to do anything at this time, but in the future, could clerks please instruct non-parties to trim overly long statements? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ricky81682 ( talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.
The following is the appeal sent to ArbCom by Ricky, copied here with his permission:
– Joe ( talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Where is the best place to find the reading material? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
How (if at all) are Arbitration Committee recommendations communicated to the community? — andrybak ( talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
[it] is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. However, these announcements are not mentioned on the guide page either. All mentions of "statements" refer to case participants' statements, not statements from AC. Section "Decision" ends with
The decision will be published to the talk pages of the participants and to the Administrators' noticeboard, and any remedies (blocks, bans, article or editorial restrictions) will take effect at that time. Perhaps, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard should be mentioned alongside Administrators' noticeboard. — andrybak ( talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The current clarification request re Coronovirus and Alternative medicine does not appear on the template - which says there are no current requests, but also that the template needs updating. Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ilhan Omar talk page says that "a portion of the article" is under remedies given by WP:A/I/PIA. The WP:A/I/PIA says that editors with less than 30/500 edits should not participate in a RfC.
There presently is a RfC on the talk-page, with editors not fulfilling the 30/500 requirement participating, see Talk:Ilhan_Omar#30/500. Should they? Huldra ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I raised a query about recusal for DGG on the case page that may have been misunderstood. Please review this query; I have highlighted a portion of my original statement in case that part was overlooked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Where does one find the ARCA archives? I would have thought there would be a prominent link on WP:ARCA. - MrX 🖋 12:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
One of the admins who would presumably be a party to the arbitration case being requested, JzG, has just blocked me from commenting on that amendment page until 28 July. I'm calling attention to this for three reasons:
1: Virtually everyone considers me a party to the case being requested, so I think I should be allowed to participate in the case, even if I'm prohibited from participating in the article itself.
2: JzG has been deeply involved in one of the two camps (the camp that's opposite mine) on both the article and the RFC, so this is an admin action undertaken against one of his opponents in this dispute, not an action by an uninvolved admin.
3: Although there's nothing I currently want to say on that page that I haven't said already, I'd like ArbCom to be aware that if they ask me any further questions there, I'll be unable to answer. 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 ( talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
one, single article talk page. To be technical, the block as currently worded doesn't even apply to the article itself (which is highly unusual). El C would you clarify that the block applies to both article and article talk, and is it a PBAN (limited to the one page) or a TBAN (from the topic). I ask because a PBAN allows the editor to discuss the topic elsewhere, per:
[e]ditors subject to an article ban are free to edit other related pages or discuss the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Bradv: Arbitration is my last resort (and the last resort of the people affected) to address the BLP issue I've described, so I'm counting on you to exercise good judgment about it. I know my own behavior hasn't always been helpful, so if the long-term BLP issue can be resolved, I'll accept my block from the article talk page without a complaint.
If there truly is nothing that can be done about the BLP situation, I'll (reluctantly) accept that answer as well, as long as I can at least be given a clear answer about why it isn't possible, that I could share with any researchers who raise this issue with me in the future. 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 ( talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently, there are pagenotices that say "this article is under Arbcom sanction, you need to be logged in and you can't edit unless you are 30/500, etc." However, the talk page notice has been updated to one where it says "PART of this talk page is under DS and you need to follow the rules, etc." when only part of the page has been placed under DS and not the whole page. Also, the current pagenotice, links to the old talkpage alerts, and other stuff. How do we go about making a new pagenotice and one for a partial pagenotice so that it's clear that any one can edit the page, only they can't edit when it's within the Arbcom sanctioned area, aligned with what the talk page notice says? See for example the talk page and pagenotice at Ain_Jalut. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The current version of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision looks like {{ Casenav}} has run into some issues. I apologize for not having the time to look into it any further, but I thought someone might want to know. There haven't been any edits to the template since September 2019, so I'm not sure what went wrong... Enterprisey ( talk!) 08:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change X"Ashley Bratcher is an American actress and anti-abortion activist" to Y"Ashley Bratcher is an American actress." Ashley is not an activist. She is an actress with an opinion. Actresses who have been far more vocal in their "activism" are not labeled as activists, notably those who are outspokenly pro-choice: See pages for Alyssa Milano, Busy Philipps, and Michelle Williams for reference. The label is misleading, unfavorable, and biased. The aforementioned actresses are not described as activists; nor, should Ashley Bratcher be. 99.87.245.141 ( talk) 20:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I generated a list of the past ~11 years of Principles. It's not curated, not topic-sorted, and quite repetitive, but I think it still might be useful. Would it make sense to move it to the project space and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index? (Posting here because the talk page for /Index redirects here.) -- Yair rand ( talk) 03:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the right place to raise this. I've noticed that ARCAs seem to regularly take longer than full-blown cases to resolve. They last for months and months; and not just this year, but last year, too. I thought ARCA was supposed to be lightweight and faster than a full case? One thing I notice is that full cases have public deadlines, but ARCAs do not. Should we add a deadline to ARCAs? Like, 7 days for statements, 7 days for Arbs to weigh in? Levivich dubious – discuss 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
In summary, I think the process of both forming and expressing the consensus of DAILYMAIL has been thoroughly tainted by totally unacceptable conduct, to such an extent that there isn't even any point in pretending this is not already a matter for the Arbitration Committee to resolve, even if that might technically be an impproper act of queue jumping.
I had a hunch that arguing the Daily Mail had not been given a fair shake by Wikipedia would be a tough road on Wikipedia, but even I was amazed to see that gaslighting and censoring was the immediate go to reaction to my efforts.
This is unacceptable. My points are perfectly valid, they deserve to be considered properly, even if they may not be entirely original, and in not doing so, specifically in the manner they are preventing it, the Wikipedia community is effectively proving my suspicions correct.
I have absolutely no confidence that if I raise the gaslighting and censoring as issues for dispute resolution at any stage lower than this Committee, that I will get anywhere at all, because the people doing it are apparently the very same people who would be passing judgement there too, namely Administrative users. I fear that I would be blocked well before I had crossed all the required bridges. I may even be blocked for this simple request, even though it affects nobody who is happy to ignore it as the ravings of a mad man, who knows.
If it is true that issues put before this Committee are the first and only time it is not just expected, but required, for people to prove their claims with evidence, if this is the first and only time where popular opinion won't come into it at all, then is it at all possible to have the issue of DAILYMAIL be considered without all the required prior steps?
Before anyone says it, perhaps as a perfectly innocent reply rather than just more of the same gaslighting, I am well aware the DAILYMAIL issue has had wide participation from Wikipedia editors. But when you're not even allowed to stand behind a true fact, even as a minority of one, such is the apparent fear it induces that pulling at that thread might make the whole thing fall down, even that doesn't mean a decision is right, much less is consensus.
Brian K Horton ( talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(I wrote this before I realised Newslinger had asked for me to be banned, which, if he succeeds, will rather prove my point I think). Brian K Horton ( talk) 17:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The current case is a perfect example of why there should be a means of short-circuiting a case without the need for the usual arbmaj. I have no idea how this could be achieved.
By means of some kind of box-check plus link that has to be provided in order to save the page, perhaps? Or a mandate that no ANI link=no previous attempt at resolution, so can ne archive immediately by a clerk.
Obviously, it couldn't be automatic; obviously some cases have to come straight here without stopping at Go.
Maybe something akin to CSD perhaps, whereby the principle that "If you have to stop and think, it's probably contentious" applies. But cases like this are simply going to waste everyone's time. Loads of people are going to turn up and say the same thing when the result is a foregone conclusion, and X-amount of arbs are going to have to give their already limited time to this rather than, say, that thing that lasted three months. —— Serial # 11:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be something hinky with the close statement on this. The draft notice says "Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban Lightbreather (talk · contribs) has been closed as unsuccessful. Lightbreather may file another appeal to the committee in six months' time." With (as I read it) 8-2 Support. The close statement says exactly the opposite: "Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The following remedies of the Lightbreather arbitration case are rescinded: site ban (4.3.1)". Ideas? AKAF ( talk) 11:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal ...text is the original motion that then proceeded to be discussed. When that discussion concluded, the result (
Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban...) was posted. The former, see, was what was being suggested; the latter is what actually happened. (Non-arb comment, of course) All the best! —— Serial 11:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned and David Fuchs: Regarding this request here is a more thought-out proposal for a supplement to the Anti-harassment RfC. Please let me know what you think of it.
I hope this is what you want. If not, please let me know here. I will check back in at least a few days before I make an RFC out of it, and I encourage any arbitrator or clerk to preempt me if they want to. EllenCT ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to complain against all the leading sexuality and lgbt related editors in english wikipedia for doing partiality in lgbt related articles and using and interpreting the policy partially in different cases. They allow homosexuality of ottomans in LGBT in Islam article but they does not allow sodom and gomorrah and lot in homosexuality article, they allow pro-LGBT view of Sigmund Freud, but they does not allow anti-LGBT view of Freud, it seems that they are deliberately advocating pro-LGBT views rather than maintaining policy and neutrality properly, wikipedia arbitration should deeply investigate this corruption. 103.67.157.117 ( talk) 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by North8000 at 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Request for removal of older Arbcom-placed restrictions.
I have topic bans on tea party movement, gun control, the homophobia article, and post 1932 american politics and a limitation to one account. Most of my restrictions originated in the 2013 tea party movement 2014 gun control cases and the newest (american politics) was placed in 2016 as a sort of “add on” condition when I came back. All were appeal able starting in mid-2017 but I’m just first asking now. I learned and wiki-evolved an immense amount from the entire process, as well as from time and experience. The newest event that any of these were based on was over 6 years ago.
Since (2016) I’ve been active in Wikipedia in wide ranging areas with an additional 12,000+ edits (now 53,000+ total) in article creation & improvement, GA reviews, helping folks out, and very active at NPP / new article curation, policy and guideline page discussions and a range of other areas which provide a diverse “proving out”. . This has all been with zero issues and zero drama of any type. This has not been due to any of the restrictions, it’s just how I roll throughout that period and now. I’m requesting that you remove of all of the restrictions to give me a clean slate. The “clean slate” aspect is more important to me than any restrictions in particular. Thanks for your consideration and of course I'd be happy to answer any questions.North8000 ( talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The committee should reject vacating North8000's topic ban on Homophobia. Although it was eight years ago, his contributions there were entirely disruptive and wasted a great deal of editor's time. [6] [7] There is no reason to believe that North8000 has some unique perspective or skill that will benefit this fully developed article. The risk greatly outweighs any potential reward.
At this point, I have no opinion about whether the Tea Party topic ban should remain. Regarding gun control and post-1932 American Politics, I can only say that that topic area has settled down quite a bit in the past few years as a direct result of several editors having been topic banned and editing restrictions having beed imposed on several articles. I may have more to add later. - MrX 🖋 17:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I have only limited engagement with North8000 but I've seen no issues between them and other editors. The tbans are 8 years old, if they haven't caused trouble since I think its safe to assume they have learned better ways to deal with editorial disagreements. If problems return it's not like the tban's can't be reinstated. In cases like this we should always err on the side of assuming good faith. Springee ( talk) 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Newyorkbrad:, what about a 1RR limit on the previously restricted topic areas. That generally prevents article edit issues. I'm not sure if talk page restrictions would be needed. Allow the restrictions to expire after 6 months if there are no new issues. I admit this doesn't address talk page but it would prevent article level issues. Perhaps a strict talk page CIVIL restriction on the affected topics? Springee ( talk)
I haven't much knowledge of the other topic-bans so I'm not going to opine about them, but I would definitely oppose lifting the topic ban on Homophobia, on which North8000's 266 talk page posts wasted vast amounts of other editors' time arguing for the article to be completely re-written to include a WP:FRINGE definition of homophobia (that using the word which includes -phobia denigrates opposition to homosexuality), and accused other editors of being "activists" [11]. He eventually exhausted everyone's patience (as an example, try this conversation. It's one article, there are 6m+ others. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
In June 2020, North8000 made three comments criticizing the highly-attended 2020 Fox News RfC after the discussion had been active for over two weeks:
Fox News, which is categorized under Category:Conservative media in the United States, is a contentious subject in the field of American politics, with active arbitration remedies on the Fox News article itself. One of the RfC questions was "Is Fox News reliable for US Politics?", and the RfC had been listed under the "Politics, government, and law" RfC category. I was not aware of this topic ban when I responded to the third comment. — Newslinger talk 20:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I genuinely believe that North means well and is clueful enough not to repeat previous mistakes. Broadly speaking, I think it would be right to lift at least some of the restrictions on a trial– WP:ROPE basis. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Xeno: I would change "Unless modified by further motion, the restrictions will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to something like "Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to avoid ambiguity; arbcom can always modify any restriction they placed at any time, with or without explicit provision. I'd also a clause along the lines of "Any restrictions that are reimposed may be appealed at WP:AE one year after their reimposition if no alternative time frame is specified." Thryduulf ( talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
North8000 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was restricted by motion in December 2016 ( Motion regarding North80000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
DGG, you are right about the impact of empathetic physicians on the psychological state of the patient, but I think you are wrong about the placebo effect. I grew up believing exactly what you say, having read Ben Goldacre and others, but the more you look at the actual studies, the more you find that the placebo effect does not have any actual objective effect. You can go right back to the study that arguably popularised the entire field of placebo studies, Henry Beecher's 1955 paper The Powerful Placebo. When you look at the data, you find that its conclusions are completely untenable ( https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435697002035). Most papers pitching the placebo effect as a thing, use self-reported measures of subjective outcomes. When that's compared with objective measures, the effect is shown to be illusory. Example: "Although albuterol, but not the two placebo interventions, improved FEV1 in these patients with asthma, albuterol provided no incremental benefit with respect to the self-reported outcomes." { [12]) As someone who has used albuterol for many years, I would say that an intervention that makes you feel as if you can breathe but doesn't actually make it so, is not a great idea.
So I am firmly on the side of Margaret McCartney (and the late Kate Grainger) in supporting both empathetic clinical interactions, and hard-line skepticism towards any medical intervention, however superficially obvious (McCartney, for example, is a critic of some screening practices, which result in many false positives, worry, and unnecessary interventions).
The problem with pseudoscience is different, though: it is the enterprise of producing sciencey-sounding research that is not designed to test whether a thing does work, but to provide marketing support for its sale. Nobody has any trouble seeing that as a problem when it's OxyContin, but when it's acupuncture they get all outraged that one is not supporting the patient's choice (a choice guided, of course, by fraudulent claims, and thus not an informed free choice in any meaningful sense). CAM is not a fad, it is a vast and extremely profitable industry, and it is quite cynically based. TCM is basically a creature of Mao, who did not have enough doctors but wanted to pretend that he had the kind of health coverage that Western nations boasted. Office of Alternative Medicine (and its successors successors leading to NCCIH) have spent several billion dollars attempting to validate alternative therapies, thus far without success. Hatch and Harkin's DSHEA deliberately tilts the playing field in favour of SCAM by preventing the FDA from even looking at a SCAM product until after it has been shown to be harmful, a reversal of the situation for reality-based medicines. I do not think there is any problem with Wikipedia coming down on the side of reality (per Jimbo's " lunatic charlatans" comment if nothing else). You could defend the lies of SCAM if it weren't for the steady stream of people who believe the hype and die of untreated cancer. The coroner's report in the case of Penelope Dingle is one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. SCAM is not a beneficial enterprise, it is commercial., Like every commercial enterprise it is there to maximise profit and markets. Some states have mandated that naturopaths, who have basically no real medical training, must be allowed to practice as primary care physicians. Same with chiropractors, who believe that all disease is a result of disturbances in the flow of innate intelligence in the spine. Same with "Lyme literate" doctors who prescribe indefinite courses of powerful antibiotics when there is no evidence of microbial infection. This is not a victimless fraud. In my view we can and should resist the introduction of claims that serve a commercial or quasi-religious agenda, when they are not objectively correct. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Whilst I still have some time I figured I'd leave this with you for clarification. Over past couple months I've spoken to several admins re. DS procedures, mostly relating to my work on simplifying/cleaning up community sanction templates (speaking of, gentle query on if you've come to a decision re. my July email yet?), as I didn't want to file a dozen clarification requests. This ARCA stems from a discussion I had with El C, here. Would ask if you could read that section (& possibly see the diffs of change on the linked templates) as it provides relevant context for this question. I understand that the 2020 ARCA asked a very similar question to what I ask now, but given the confusion (ref discussion & incorrect template wording for years) I think it's appropriate to ask for a clear judgement.
In the 2018 ARCA, the Committee passed a motion stating that additional page restrictions apply to enforce 1RR. Namely, this meant that enforcing 1RR would require awareness procedures (incl alerting) to be met. The reasoning by the arbs was a strong feeling of it being inherently unfair to enforce 1RR on articles when the editor may not have been aware of this. Thus, a talk and editnotice alone are no longer sufficient.
In the 2020 ARCA, the Committee was going towards the idea of: the 1RR restriction [does not] require a formal alert in order to be enforced
. After close reading of both, I can only interpret this as 1RR by case remedy doesn't require any awareness, but 1RR by DS does?
Is that a correct understanding? If yes, doesn't it also logically follow that 1RR DS enforcement may use the full, broad range of discretionary sanctions enforcement mechanisms, whilst 1RR case remedy can only use increasing-duration blocks, per ArbCom standard procedures?
My next question is, is this two-tier approach to 1RR even logical? In practice, I don't think many admins see 1RR DS as different from 1RR Case Remedy. Both types of 1RR have the same basic awareness (a large talk notice and editnotice), so it's not really accurate to think editors will be more aware of one than the other. I'd also note that it is purely admin discretion on whether an article is "within the conflict area", so 1RR case remedy is also subject to the same level of "discretion", especially for sanctions like ARBPIA and Abortion which have very broad and discretionary scopes. Thus, it seems quite illogical to treat these two 'types' of 1RR as separate. I'd imagine this two-tier approach is also likely confusing & inaccessible to many editors.
DS...🤯 - also see above. Atsme Talk 📧 23:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I was not anticipating commenting here, as the topic is somewhat outside my wheelhouse, but I'm honestly dumbfounded by DGG's assertion that dealing with disruptive editors from our contentious areas will be less work than managing the DS system that allows uninvolved admins to deal with them. DGG, have you looked at the AELOG lately? Most AE reports are comparable in their length to an ARCA request, and there's far more of them; not to mention the hundreds of yearly actions that individual administrators take outside of AE. ARBCOM has taken upwards of three weeks to handle one clarification request, above. How would it fare if everything currently handled under DS was thrown in its lap? Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction.GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Two questions:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I just came across this case in the Signpost. Regarding the question of a pattern of misconduct by JzG, Beeblebrox wrote that I feel like if there was clear evidence of a pattern of poor judgement and/or misuse of admin tools, somebody would have proffered the evidence of it during the unusually long time this request has been open.
I have some evidence of such a pattern, which I would like to contribute. It concerns an incident last month in which JzG denied the unblock request of an editor with whom he was involved in a content dispute. Since I was involved in that dispute, but not in the ones cited by MrX, I am unsure where to post this evidence. Should it be a statement in the current case, or brought to the attention of the arbitrators in some other way? Advice appreciated. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 19 |
I request that either authors or clerks remove the bright yellow highlighting from their posts here. Aside from being poor from an accessibility perspective if the correct aspect ratios between text and background colours are not maintained, it would be good to avoid the situation where everyone starts highlighting things and the purpose of it is defeated. I think we, as a group, can read the posts and make our own conclusions about what is most important, or failing that, we can use formatting options such as bold and italics. -- Deskana ( talk) 09:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Over 1,300 words and still not yet addressed the BLP issue. If he doesn't deign to return to trim it to a reasonable length, is there anything in 'crats power to do something about it? - SchroCat ( talk) 06:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@ GoldenRing: Smallbones's statement is now over 1,512 words - over three times the 500-word limit (and it still fails to address the BLP infraction). Do the clerks not take any action when I one is so far out of line? - SchroCat ( talk) 16:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Bradv and GoldenRing: Since his initial statement, Smallbones has edited his statement five times four of which been to lengthen it. This isn't some well-intentioned newcomer who doesn't understand the processes, this is the self-appointed editor of the Signpost who has either managed to miss both the huge red box at the top of the page (not only in this case, but in every other case the Signpost has covered) and the warning he received more than a week ago, or is intentionally thumbing his nose at every other party and participant by demanding he be given three times the space anyone else is allowed. If he's not willing to shorten his statement, can someone shorten it for him? ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Can I replace the existing restrictions with the ability to move pages, create DAB page and redirects. It was suggested by SilkTork ( talk · contribs) that I would be expected to have a 5% (or less) failure at RM. I pointed out that RM is for controversial moves, not uncontroversial moves to aren't relevant to that. It was then suggested that I use RMT and I now have 108 edits at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but only 4 of these have been contested (I think) and out of those only 1 failed so I think I have passed that, see User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 49#New articles. Also at the last ARCA it was agreed to allow me to create pages outside the mainspace, given that DAB pages and redirects don't fall under article even if in the mainspace, see Wikipedia:What is an article? I think if I'm allowed to create pages outside the mainspace, its not that different to allow DAB pages and redirects in the mainspace. I am requesting to allow the page moves and DAB pages/redirects so that I can use them for housekeeping at for the bot created articles, see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot and User talk:SilkTork#Bot created articles. Obviously if we're fine with removing the restrictions all together then that's great but this would be fine for the next 6 months while we do the bot created civil parishes since as pointed out we're taking it 1 step at a time.
The suggested changed are:
In the BOTREQ mentioned by Crouch, Swale he has asked for 700+ articles to be created by a bot rather than by himself, which seems to me to be an attempt to outsource the creation and avoid his current ban. They have been asked to gain consensus for the BOTREQ, which he has tried to do, but not had any significant response. I note that previous discussions here have concern[s] that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs
which is exactly what the BOTREQ is to do. He has suggested an initial run of 6 articles per day, which is a lot more that the current 1 AfC per week restriction. All of the suggestions to his restrictions above make the assumption that the mass article creation goes ahead, so that needs to be considered here.
Spike 'em (
talk)
08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, when I wrote in " Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot"
"Smaller batches" is a way of having a better chance at getting support when things could potentially be contentious. It does not negate the need for prior consensus before creation, but it might make consensus easier to get. Going "I want to create 1000 articles tomorrow!" vs going "Hey, about about we have a bot create 10 articles as drafts as a subpage of WP:PLANTS, see what the feedback is on them, if they need more work, etc... so the next 10 are easier to handle, ... and then we'll see if we get to a point where we're comfortable having the remaining articles get created directly in article space" or similar.
Note the it might. People may decide this is too close to violating a page creation ban for comfort. Or maybe they'd be open to such a bot creating articles in the project space if someone other than you reviews the article before moving into mainspace. Or maybe people would be comfortable with the task as proposed.
I did not mean that lifting the page creation ban would negate the need for consensus for mass WP:MASSCREATION, either through a bot or a meatbot, the distinction between the two being pointless for WP:MEATBOT purposes. I say this part for the benefits of User:Crouch, Swale, in case they thought a lift on restriction was sufficient to ensure WP:BOTREQUIRE #4.
Generally speaking, the BAG is of the opinion that making a WP:BOTREQ is not a violation of a page creation ban/restriction, since a) the request would be reviewed to ensure community consensus independently of the requester b) pages would be created by someone other than the requester c) if concerns related to using a bot to circumvent the ban existed, those would be addressed during the BRFA. I say this bit for the benefit of ARBCOM, in case they think that making a BOTREQ to have a bot create articles is (by itself) somehow nefarious behaviour. It is also the first time User:Crouch, Swale makes such a request, which may or may not matter.
I say both the above bits as a BAG member, purely for context and without prejudice against lifting, or maintaining, or expanding the ban, on which I have no opinion as I have not reviewed the current ban nor the relevant facts that led to it. Should a WP:BRFA be filed, BAG will review that the task complies with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:BOTREQUIRE (#4) and WP:MASSCREATION, as applicable at the time of review. A lift of the ban would imply fewer restrictions on the task, maintaining the ban would imply more restrictions on it, but in all cases the bot's task and mode of operation (if approved) would be subject to community consensus. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
However we seem to be somewhat in a situation where we can't get consensus for the bot request due to the current ban and we can't get consensus on what to do with my restrictions because we don't have consensus for the bot request.Maybe. But what I was getting at in that discussion was that consensus was unclear for the task because only you expressed support for it. This was meant to be an invitation to go to a Wikiproject and start a discussion there to flesh out the idea, and if there was buy in, BAG would then be in a position to evaluate if there was consensus for something. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned: the bot request is entertained to the extent that there is a theoretical path forward. However, as of now the bot logic is so premature that no bot coder would take the task because no one knows what they are being asked to code exactly, and a village pump discussion is likely bound to fail because of the page creation restrictions combined with the ill-defined logic of the bot. These are theoretically surmountable hurdles. For instance, if there's a clear bot logic proposed, which results in articles that the community would deem appropriate. Or that a bot coder shows interest in the task and is willing to work with Crouch, Swale and with other WikiProjects to figure out how exactly to build such articles out of existing resources. But we aren't there yet. Right now, there's not even a "The bot would go to this <database>, and use <this data> in this <exact manner>." Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"crapflood[ing] the wiki with stubs". As I also said there:
"At a minimum this would need BAG approval and that of the projects concerned (bold added), yes. I'd also like to see an explicit statement from Crouch, Swale that they would STOP the second ANYONE asked them to - for the protection of the wiki, and the protection of Crouch, Swale from reimposition of blocks."
I also share the concern expressed by Spike 'em : "seems ... to be an attempt to outsource the creation and avoid his current ban"
. I'm still uneasy about Crouch, Swale exercising sufficient judgement in this area, given the history. I don't think amending restrictions to facilitate mass creation is a good idea here - I'm basically uneasy about CS being involved in mass creation processes in any way at this point. --
Begoon
20:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
so that I can use them for housekeeping at for the bot created articlesand
this would be fine for the next 6 months while we do the bot created civil parishes. It's just pure tunnel vision.I had hoped that the slow adjustment of restrictions, including the article creation through AfC, might help Crouch, Swale, understand why his previous behavior was problematic. I hoped that working one by one on drafts of reasonable length might help him understand the level of work he was asking other editors to undertake in dealing with his large amount of micro-stubs. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have been the case. There still seems to be no awareness of why others might be concerned about the creation of approximately a thousand such stubs (either manually or by a bot) and the accompanying retitles, redirects, and disambiguation pages. On that basis, I can't do anything other than decline this request. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
While I think that the activity level of arbitrators is a legitimate topic for discussion, I respectfully suggest that the topic would be better placed on this talk page instead of on the case request page. -- Pine (✉) 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There are a few different places that I could put this, but I think that here is a good place to start. I am trying to avoid prejudicing any outcome of what may or may not be accepted as a case for arbitration.
Regardless of whether the case is accepted, I think that there should be clarification of whether the community wants to explicitly include Signpost articles within the scope of the current BLP policy, or to grant a narrow exception for investigative reporting regarding Wikimedia matters such as volunteers, WMF or affiliate staff, and WMF or affiliate board members.
My recollection is that historically the community has accepted some investigative reporting by The Signpost that included reporting negative information regarding living people that was not backed by other published sources, but recent events make me think that community consensus has turned against the idea of The Signpost doing this type of reporting. While I think that the narrowing of scope would lead to a loss of public benefit from having certain types of investigative reporting, the change of scope would also reduce the risk to volunteers who write for The Signpost who could be willing to take personal legal risks for what they think is the greater good, and also reduces the risk of The Signpost publishing information that later turns out to be false and negative regarding living people and thus decreasing the community's trust for the publication.
I don't know whether I should ping individual people to ask for advice about the best procedure for asking this policy question of the community. I would like to request input from arbitration clerks and/or arbs regarding whether I should wait for the case to be accepted or declined before proceeding further with asking the community for a policy decision. I am also pinging User:Smallbones due to his current status as Signpost Editor-in-Chief. -- Pine (✉) 18:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Smallbones. I don't want to encourage any further litigation of this particular Signpost article, but I'm glad that you agree that a discussion about rules for The Signpost is in order. I am okay with waiting for awhile, but in the meantime I encourage you and everyone else who writes for The Signpost to be very cautious about writing anything that could start an argument about whether something is a BLP violation. I agree that other people made comments outside of The Signpost which I think are questionable, but I would not encourage The Signpost to use others' actions that test the limits of acceptability as a guide for what The Signpost should also be allowed to publish. Now that the RFAR has been declined, would you be okay with moving this discussion to one of the newspaper's talk pages? Thanks for the very large amount of effort that you are exerting in keeping the Signpost alive and relevant. -- Pine (✉) 04:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This should be done in conjunction with a set of overall community-approved guidelines for the Signpost. Many of the conflicts that arise involve confusion and disagreement over whether or not concepts such as WP:BLP, WP:OWN and editorial independence are applicable to its articles. Since many of us seem to forget about it or assume that the issues are resolved until the next brouhaha, perhaps folks who are active at the Signpost could write up a proposal and find a good time to present it to the community. – dlthewave ☎ 12:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
In the
declined case about a Signpost article, some of statements are marked with {Signpost}
and (Signpost)
. What do these marks signify in the context of the request for arbitration? —
andrybak (
talk)
18:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So it looks like WMF said it's cool for Arbcom to review the Fram case. The previous arbcom request on this was messy as it also included reviewing WMF. It seems too obvious but nobody was done it.....a request for Arbcom to review matters that led to the WMF ban on Fram and determine the appropriate course of action regarding Fram. I'm sure that there is currently a lot of contemplation on the general topic by Arbcom members, but this would would crystallize things to a question put forward in the standard/official manner. Would it be crazy or a bad idea to make this request? If not, I would be happy to make it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators, I ask that you please resolve to ask the Foundation whether if in the future they would like to propose sanctions limited to the English Wikipedia or in duration, the User:WMFOffice would agree to open an arbitration request like anyone else, providing that such cases may be disposed of by motion when secret evidence is sufficiently compelling.
Alternatively, should the WMFOffice be privileged with the trust to make requests of the Committee by asking on this page? EllenCT ( talk) 22:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The standard header for clarifications appears to say nothing about word limits. Could someone put me right if there is, as I'm probably going over? Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Arbitrators, if you want to have a case based on an alternative request, please either make a motion setting forth the particulars and let each arbitrator vote with reasons, or make a new case request. What you should not do is pour inflammable liquids on an already heated situation by using weird process or back channels. Your trust level with the community is at a low; do try to bring it back up. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Seeking a confirmation that my topic ban does not preclude me from posting diffs or links to pages covered by my ban for the purpose of identifying user conduct in a forum such as this? Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't have an account and I need to file an arbitration claim for something. This page shows that it's protected, which effectively bars me from filing a claim; meaning, that regular editors/users have access to arbitration, whereas I do not. 173.24.39.178 ( talk) 21:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wikipedia Humanities Desk: an admin closed my question.
I think it was a strawman fallacy. There's a reason why my topic was "In your jurisdiction, can bus drivers have schizophrenia?" Because I know I wasn't asking about my specific jurisdiction. And my example was the reasoning on how I came up with that question, encountering a talking bus driver. So my thread was not "does anyone think this bus driver has schizophrenia?" Just because I mentioned my example inside my paragraph doesn't change my thread title, even though I would welcome people to discuss either subject. 170.76.231.162 ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC). 170.76.231.162 ( talk) 17:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've been advised to email a complaint to arbcom-en. [3] Can I mail HTML, e.g. a cut and paste of wikitext? Or should I reformat it into text or a PDF or something? I've been working on it in my sandbox without saving it, so it's all wikitext. Vashti ( talk) 07:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
'''text''' that contains [[markup]] like ''this''
) is unlikely to be easy to comprehend, though. Plain text is also fine. A PDF is probably not so useful.
GoldenRing (
talk)
10:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Beeblebrox at 23:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
In several recent cases, clerks have taken what seems to me to be a very heavy-handed approach to policing proposed decision talk pages, enforcing absolute conformity of section headers and only allowing themselves or arbs to participate in threaded discussion, absolutely banning it for us "lesser" users. When I questioned this, SilkTork directed me to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Statement and evidence management as the policy that supports this practice. The problem there is that it doesn't. There is no mention of any rules for talk pages. This appears to be a policy that doesn't actually exist, yet the clerks are strongly enforcing it at the apparent direction of the committee.
While I completely understand the need for controls in initial statements and evidence pages, talk pages, anywhere in project space, are used by the community to discuss the project. In this case the committee seems to be enforcing standards that were just made up out of thin air and are not documented on-wiki. Given that in this most recent case the enforcement of unknown rules based on invisible criteria was a central problem, I strongly feel this issue needs to be brought out in the open and whatever process that was used to develop it needs to be made transparent.
Failing that, the committee needs to accept that there is no such rule and instruct the clerks to stop enforcing it. Arbitration processes are complicated enough without expecting users to abide by invisible rules that apply only when the committee suddenly decides they apply on a particular page.
(The above is my initial statement, below are replies to arbitrator comments) Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"it's something that the clerk team and ArbCom has agreed upon.". And that's how new policies are made now? You guys hold a private discussion then begin enforcing a rule by adding a notice to a talk page if and when you decide it applies to that page? A rule that, again, is not in any policy I've seen. I suppose if you do things that way it is easier, you can just make up whatever rule you want and tell the community "we and the clerks agree this is a good idea, so it's now policy whenever we decide it is" but I'm pretty sure even ArbCom isn't supposed to work that way. "the fact that it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy" uh ok, is there anything else yu aren't telling us, any other secret policies in your back pocket for when you believe its convenient to spring them on the community and declare that's how it works from now on?
Beeblebrox (
talk)
17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
C'mon Joe. You're just making up ridiculous excuses now. "The format of a talk page is not policy" is nonsense. If there's not a policy, why is it being enforced? Why are the clerks instructed to do it that way? Arbcom is responsible for establishing its own procedures, I'm not contesting that, but they should be way more transparent than this when doing so. You can't have it both ways, either you are enforcing a new policy that you all have neglected to put in your own procedures, or there is no such rule. Invisible rules that come and go at the whim of the abs is no way to run a committee. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious if any of the arbs have any comment on the fact that the committee also exempts itself and its clerks from this policy, making them free to engage in threaded discussion if they wish while the rest of us are absolutely verboten from doing so. If there was one way to tell the community you think you are better than them, making up a policy and then exempting yourself from it would be a good start. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It has been said that the practise makes it easier to read. That must be for different readers. For me, it's much easier to understand a chronological flow of arguments, than having to go not only to the section where xyz said something, but on top when that happened. It would have been easy for my section because I didn't change my mind ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Joe Roe: it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy
– Isn't this exactly the definition of unknown rules based on invisible criteria
? Committee may ask the clerk team to implementing procedures as they wish, but these needs to be spelled out in policy pages (as the basis for when and why the comments must be sectioned), and the committee needs to provide their rationale clearly (as you have done here, thank you), otherwise to those unfamiliar with arbitration proceedings on Wikipedia, it would simply appear as arbitrary enforcement. Community participations are crucial to these proceedings, and if the committee and the clerk team are starting to micromanage every arbitration page in a heavy handed manner (such as absolute conformity of section headers, like seriously?) without adequate communication, it discourages members of the community from participating further, and reduces the effectiveness of the committee from reaching informed decisions.
And these "rules" that are "documented prominently
" are randomly put in pages where the committee decides to put with no explanations given initially, and they are not spelled out explicitly in any policy pages at the moment, which I believe is what
Beeblebrox is saying; so you may want to withdraw your "disingenuous
" accusation, as that is not the example of good faith as required by
WP:ARBCOND, and comes off as rather ironic as we have only recently concluded another case centered around civility.
Alex Shih (
talk)
08:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It's a rule designed to stop people from talking to each other, or at least significantly interfere with their ability to do so. I don't know why you'd want to do that on a collaborative project. – Leviv ich 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As I am demonstrating here, it is now difficult for any reader who is reading this page to know whether the "I agree with Levivich" responses of other editors apply to my entire section, or just the first point above. You have to compare the damn timestamps to figure that out. This inhibits communication and understanding, not just for editors, but also for arbs.
Another problem is that we cannot create section headers for topics, to discuss different issues separately. So anyone wanting to now reply to just this second comment of mine, has to say something foolish like, "Regarding Levivich's second point", and in a few more comments, we'll have, "In response to Joe's third reply to WBG's second response to Levivich's fourth bullet point...".
If we want to get all bureaucratic about this, we can start an RfC to amend ARBPOL with "thou shalt not section talk pages", but gee it'd be better to just have a conversation with the arbs and clerks about it to find the best way forward.
Towards that end, I would ask the arbitrators: since the talk page sectioning policy procedure was implemented, how has it affected the quality and speed of decisions, compared with before the change? –
Leviv
ich
20:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
No, Levivich, there is nothing preventing me from talking to you, nor interfering with my ability to do so, from down here. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Brad: Sure, the committee can decide they like long interminable back and forth, but it's difficult to see an advantage, including in surfacing what's important. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Echo Levivich. Further, Joe Roe shall not be casting random aspersions laden with a bout of bad faith. ∯WBG converse 16:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with BeebleBrox, Gerda, and Levivich. The intent certainly seems to be to squash discussion. The effect is to make it almost impossible to determine what anyone is talking about. I certainly don't find the segmented approach an improvement, indeed quite the contrary. If EditorA says "Bluebells are bad:reason" I ought to be able to counter below, rather than start my own section with "Regarding EditorA's contention that bluebells are bad, above, ...." which requires anyone trying to read the page to scroll and search for text snippets endlessly. It takes easily twice as long per reply, and the effort increases exponentially with each reply. It's absurd. Regarding Joe's assertion that ArbCom and the Clerks have decided this - really? Because while I support their right to organize cases as they see fit, I do not recognize their right to abritrarily decide that talk pages in their demense should suddenly not work as all other talk pages throughout the project. Unless someone is violating Talk page guidelines, what is the issue? I fail to see any rationale here which makes any kind of sense. And as per others' statements, above - this isn't in policy, or guidelines, or anywhere the community can see. One puppy's opinion. Killer Chihuahua 20:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe the "sectioned discussion" rule originated awhile ago in the context of a few cases in which the parties were having difficulty in interacting civilly. The rule was created and enforced in a good-faith attempt to keep the arbitration pages useful, not to impair discussion on these pages. Nonetheless, in my opinion and experience it has sometimes had the opposite effect. In particular, in cases with substantial community interest, a page can grow to a large size. It then becomes difficult to make a new comment in a section near the top of the page noticeable, and important points can be missed, including potentially by the arbitrators. For this reason, without endorsing any of the comments (here or elsewhere) imputing intent to anyone, I would urge a reevaluation of this procedure, or at least perhaps using it only in specific instances where it proves necessary. (It may, however, also make sense to table this issue until January and let next year's Committee address it, especially since the impending Israel-Palestine review case may be one in which sectioning the discussion does make sense.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The intended point of PD talk pages is only for individual editors (principally parties) to bring matters relating to the PD to the attention of the Committee. It isn't intended to be a space for community discussion about the case, or the background to it, or anything else. IIRC sectioned talk pages were first introduced (or at least an early use was) for a case during my tenure on the Committee (2015), where parties to the case (possibly Gamergate or Lightbreather, but I haven't checked) were seemingly incapable of sticking to the point and not carrying on the dispute that was being arbitrated. Making it hard to have conversations was part of the point and generally it worked at reducing the disruption.
If committee members were to float ideas and put early drafts of the PD in the workshop stage then most of the commentary currently on PD talk pages could go there, where the structure better allows for it. Sectioned comment on the PD talk page would therefore not be anywhere nearly as often desirable.
All that said a space for general constructive community comment on the case, that is strongly policed for on-topicness, civility, personal attacks (and attacks against the committee), and other disruption, is probably a good thing to have. The PD talk page is the wrong venue for it though - it should be a space that the committee are encouraged to read but not required to read - anything essential to the proposed decision should be concisely addressed to the committee on the PD talk page. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I have no strong opinions as to whether in your part of the wiki you have a different way of organising talkpages or not. But If you are going to have a non standard setup please use edit notices to inform people rather than hiding comments at the top of the page. Once a page runs to the sort of size your pages do, it is a reasonable expectation that a lot of people reading and commenting in one section won't remember some formatting comment at the top of the screen, they likely haven't even seen it. But they will see an edit notice, even if they are editing the fiftieth section on your page. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It helps to minimise edit conflicts and outdents. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Leaky caldron ( talk) 21:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The clerks' functions include the administration of arbitration cases and management of all the Committee's pages and subpages; enforcing Committee decisions; implementing procedures; and enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages. We could easily add something about sectioned discussion to the clerk procedure page if that's helpful, but the fact that it isn't spelled out there yet doesn't mean it's outside policy. Frankly I think it's disingenuous of Beeblebrox to describe these as
unknown rules based on invisible criteria: the rules are documented prominently at the top of every page we decide to apply sectioned discussion to, which I'm sure he knows. – Joe ( talk) 05:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved, That temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#RHaworth
What are we waiting for, a dual committee pile on? Govindaharihari ( talk) 16:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please provide me an example of how the evidence limits on involved parties work for the case of years-long, protracted disputes extending across many issues, editors, and pages? To what extent have word limits been relaxed in the past? Has there been a case, specifically, where involved parties have been allowed 3,000 words of evidence (example, at least 15 different issues requiring about 200 words each)? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Replacement of the blanked article creation restriction and 1 a week at AFC with the ability to only create current (and recently abolished) civil parishes, recently meaning abolished in 2000 or after. A list of such can be found at User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes, note that it lists about 717 but some are alternative names of settlements and probably don't require separate articles from the settlements so the number would probably be less than 700 so I would be creating about 4 a day which would be plenty few enough to be able to add meaningful content to each. There is also 23 missing welsh communities (the equivalent in Wales) at User:Crouch, Swale/Communities and 3 unparished areas listed at User:Crouch, Swale/List of unparished areas#Missing articles that are included in this request. I also request the removal of the page move restriction but that should be with a 1RR or 0RR restriction. I also request the ability to create redirects and DAB pages. As with the geographical NC ban lift these should be lifted with a condition that if there are problems they can be reinstated in the next 6 months, in addition all the creations can be speedily deleted (providing they don't have substantial edits from others) and the moves be reverted with a bot if there are serious concerns. The reason these should be removed is that I have had a 100% success rate at AFC (one was declined but shortly after accepted when I discussed with the reviewer). I also haven't had many requests at RMT contested and have also received a barnstar for my work with disambiguating 3 digit numbers. I understand that I have had competence problems in the past but I have clearly demonstrated that these restrictions are not needed and reflect my behavior years ago rather than today. So can I please have 1 chance see if these are indeed not needed. Similarly I have been allowed to create other pages since February but not one of the categories has been deleted or even questioned out of the hundreds that I have created.
If you think something else is better I'll provide a list of options below:
With the article creation restriction:
With the move restriction:
I still think C with the creation restriction and B with the move restriction is best but if you think we can remove altogether that's great and if you really think tighter than proposed but still looser than current then that's better than nothing. Note that I have looked into having parishes created by bots but I haven't got anywhere with that because I have been unable to put such a suggestion in a way a bot operator can interpret. If such a bot request was successful then that would drastically reduce the number of the (around) 700 needing creating to probably more like 20. If you have any suggestions or questions please do ask/suggest rather than just declining, thanks.
I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography about this, there was a previous thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 18#Bot created articles.
There is still the move restriction (and similar) that I can appeal, any thoughts on removing that? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to see some indication that the creation of ~700 new stubs in this topic area is desirable
hits it on the head. In two months it will be 20 years since the founding of Nupedia, and England is not some obscure country where we just haven't got around to full coverage yet. Modern-day civil parishes
are a virtually meaningless level of minor bureaucracy which the overwhelming majority of people aren't even aware exist. If you've managed to identify 717 places in England which aren't the subject of articles it's almost certainly the case that an article isn't appropriate, and if you think there's a genuine purpose in creating one article, let alone 700+, the onus is firmly on you to explain why it's necessary we do something nobody has thought worth doing for two decades. The fact that you've repeatedly failed to grasp the point that
WP:BOLD isn't a blank cheque and that it's up to you to gain consensus if you want to make a significant change is the reason you keep getting into trouble—there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea. ‑
Iridescent
20:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I've just looked at the three example articles Crouch, Swale links to as evidence of what they are asking to be allowed to rapidly create. Risga is about an uninhabited island \which used a mix of imperial and metric units without any conversion (while a UK reader is more likely than average to be familiar with both yards and hectares we are writing for an international audience who would find this unhelpful) and is largely a series of staccato sentences rather than flowing prose. Fulford, Staffordshire appears to be a civil parish consisting of a single village (but this is not clear from the article) and so the article (also full of staccato sentences) is really about the settlement not the parish. South Huish is an article ostensibly about the village and the CP of the same name that also includes two other settlements with articles, but mostly seems to be a prose(ish) listing of things located nearish the village or which have "Huish" or "South Huish" in the name (the second sentence of the Features section is about a school in a place the first section says is adjacent to (not part of) the parish. The remainder of the article contains facts, some interesting, but I'm not sure whether any of them relate to the village, the wider parish, or just happen to be nearby? If these are examples of your best work then you need to improve your writing skills and these articles before creating any more.
Also, as noted by many other people, you need to get consensus for the mass creation of articles first before getting permission to be the one to create them. The only discussion about this I've been able to find is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 1#Insane parish project by user:Morwen in late 2005, which was nothing to do with you. Indeed I see only contribution to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography by you, which was a multi-posted message about bot-creating articles about listed buildings. When I found where this was actually being discussed, it seemed you didn't really engage with the feedback you were getting.
All in all I have strongly recommend that this request is declined. I would also suggest the committee consider a restriction that prevents another appeal until after Crouch, Swale has gained consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography (or in a discussion an an appropriate alternative location that was advertised to that project) that the large scale creation of articles about civil parishes is desirable, has demonstrated the ability (within the existing restriction) to write articles about civil parishes that have good quality prose and are more than stubs. Any appeal before these have been achieved should be summarily rejected by the first arb to see it without the need to waste the time of the committee and community. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, civil parishes are a significant group of entities in England, and worthy of encyclopedia articles. I systematically resolved the red links in Civil parishes in Cumbria in 2016-17 by creating many short articles such as Preston Patrick and Kirklinton Middle. A civil parish has a population recorded in the census, usually a parish council (or occasionally a share in one with adjacent parish(es)), and a list of listed buildings (sometimes there's already a separate article about that), and has significance for its current residents, and for historians studying the area. I don't know the whole background to Crouch, Swale's restrictions, but a permission to carefully create articles on this finite set of well-defined topics seems a sensible step on the route to rehabilitation. Maybe 1/day (plus associated redirects and any necessary dab page creations) for a trial period? Pam D 18:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
SoWhy's opinion means that there is clearly, at the moment, no consensus that all of them should have individual articles: on the contrary, it only indicates that the consensus is not unanimous. I think the existence of articles for 93% of a group indicates a consensus that they are notable, unless you can detect some characteristic which makes the 7% different from the others. Pam D 23:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have watched this form the sidelines with some bemusement, and I wasn't going to get involved because it seemed a foregone conclusion. For the record though, I completely support PamD's suggestion of a trial period. I wasn't involved in the early history regarding Crouch, and there's no doubt that his behaviour back then fully justified the lengthy ban. In the two years since he's been back on-wiki though, there is nothing to suggest a return to socking or disruptive stub creation. I have mainly encountered him at RM discussions, and while we don't always agree, he knows his sources and can make a well-argued policy-based position. If the missing parish/village articles (and nobody here has actually argued that they don't meet GNG) are created along the lines of the three articles mentioned above, I think that would be a net positive for the wiki. Sure they're short, and the prose could be improved, but Nobody has suggested they should be deleted, and as Crouch says, his AFC creations are generally accepted. The proposal by Pam to allow 1 per day, with a promise to make them substantial, not just one line stubs, and see what kind of output it produces, is an excellent one. Thryduulf Worm That Turned I respect you a lot, and I voted for you in the recent ArbCom elections as the kind of quality arbs we need, but I think you've got this one wrong and urge you to reconsider. Everyone deserves a second chance. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
6 months is more than enough time). You seem to be following a tight schedule in which you are trying to whittle away at your restrictions—there is plenty of editing you can be doing while staying within your restrictions, and coming to us so regularly with requests to allow you to perform some new kind of task (in this case, one that is not clearly even wanted by the community) is quickly becoming old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined. Going forward, he may not request relaxation of his restrictions more frequently than once per year, with the next request not taking place prior to 1 January 2021. In addition, he should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions.
Enacted - CodeLyoko talk 21:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place. There is no evidence they have understood or listened to the feedback they've been given multiple times already.Crouch, Swale, you need to spend more time editing productively within your restrictions, and demonstrate that you actually understand why the sanctions were imposed. Appealing your sanction with the intention of mass-creating 700 articles without any kind of prior consensus is not a good step in that direction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like to make a comment regarding the case of Kudpung ( talk · contribs) currently underway, but I apparently cannot do so. I believe this may be because I am not a registered user. Is it impossible for me to make a comment on this case? Many thanks. 75.191.40.148 ( talk) 02:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf: Thanks. Here is my comment. If anything is deemed unrelated or unacceptable I would appreciate clarification so I can fix it.
In the Request for Arbitration concerning Kudpung, it appears that several of the statements are between 800 and 1200 words long. Kudpung's own statement is, by my count, 1037 words, but I think that it is reasonable for the defendant to be allowed a longer statement. It is annoying to some of us who have carefully kept our statements to the specified 500 words to see considerably longer statements. Since it appears that the case is about to be accepted, there is no need to do anything at this time, but in the future, could clerks please instruct non-parties to trim overly long statements? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ricky81682 ( talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously.
The following is the appeal sent to ArbCom by Ricky, copied here with his permission:
– Joe ( talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Where is the best place to find the reading material? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
How (if at all) are Arbitration Committee recommendations communicated to the community? — andrybak ( talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
[it] is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. However, these announcements are not mentioned on the guide page either. All mentions of "statements" refer to case participants' statements, not statements from AC. Section "Decision" ends with
The decision will be published to the talk pages of the participants and to the Administrators' noticeboard, and any remedies (blocks, bans, article or editorial restrictions) will take effect at that time. Perhaps, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard should be mentioned alongside Administrators' noticeboard. — andrybak ( talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The current clarification request re Coronovirus and Alternative medicine does not appear on the template - which says there are no current requests, but also that the template needs updating. Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ilhan Omar talk page says that "a portion of the article" is under remedies given by WP:A/I/PIA. The WP:A/I/PIA says that editors with less than 30/500 edits should not participate in a RfC.
There presently is a RfC on the talk-page, with editors not fulfilling the 30/500 requirement participating, see Talk:Ilhan_Omar#30/500. Should they? Huldra ( talk) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I raised a query about recusal for DGG on the case page that may have been misunderstood. Please review this query; I have highlighted a portion of my original statement in case that part was overlooked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Where does one find the ARCA archives? I would have thought there would be a prominent link on WP:ARCA. - MrX 🖋 12:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
One of the admins who would presumably be a party to the arbitration case being requested, JzG, has just blocked me from commenting on that amendment page until 28 July. I'm calling attention to this for three reasons:
1: Virtually everyone considers me a party to the case being requested, so I think I should be allowed to participate in the case, even if I'm prohibited from participating in the article itself.
2: JzG has been deeply involved in one of the two camps (the camp that's opposite mine) on both the article and the RFC, so this is an admin action undertaken against one of his opponents in this dispute, not an action by an uninvolved admin.
3: Although there's nothing I currently want to say on that page that I haven't said already, I'd like ArbCom to be aware that if they ask me any further questions there, I'll be unable to answer. 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 ( talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
one, single article talk page. To be technical, the block as currently worded doesn't even apply to the article itself (which is highly unusual). El C would you clarify that the block applies to both article and article talk, and is it a PBAN (limited to the one page) or a TBAN (from the topic). I ask because a PBAN allows the editor to discuss the topic elsewhere, per:
[e]ditors subject to an article ban are free to edit other related pages or discuss the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Bradv: Arbitration is my last resort (and the last resort of the people affected) to address the BLP issue I've described, so I'm counting on you to exercise good judgment about it. I know my own behavior hasn't always been helpful, so if the long-term BLP issue can be resolved, I'll accept my block from the article talk page without a complaint.
If there truly is nothing that can be done about the BLP situation, I'll (reluctantly) accept that answer as well, as long as I can at least be given a clear answer about why it isn't possible, that I could share with any researchers who raise this issue with me in the future. 2600:1004:B156:E839:D4E0:D0A1:9817:2017 ( talk) 00:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently, there are pagenotices that say "this article is under Arbcom sanction, you need to be logged in and you can't edit unless you are 30/500, etc." However, the talk page notice has been updated to one where it says "PART of this talk page is under DS and you need to follow the rules, etc." when only part of the page has been placed under DS and not the whole page. Also, the current pagenotice, links to the old talkpage alerts, and other stuff. How do we go about making a new pagenotice and one for a partial pagenotice so that it's clear that any one can edit the page, only they can't edit when it's within the Arbcom sanctioned area, aligned with what the talk page notice says? See for example the talk page and pagenotice at Ain_Jalut. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The current version of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision looks like {{ Casenav}} has run into some issues. I apologize for not having the time to look into it any further, but I thought someone might want to know. There haven't been any edits to the template since September 2019, so I'm not sure what went wrong... Enterprisey ( talk!) 08:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change X"Ashley Bratcher is an American actress and anti-abortion activist" to Y"Ashley Bratcher is an American actress." Ashley is not an activist. She is an actress with an opinion. Actresses who have been far more vocal in their "activism" are not labeled as activists, notably those who are outspokenly pro-choice: See pages for Alyssa Milano, Busy Philipps, and Michelle Williams for reference. The label is misleading, unfavorable, and biased. The aforementioned actresses are not described as activists; nor, should Ashley Bratcher be. 99.87.245.141 ( talk) 20:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I generated a list of the past ~11 years of Principles. It's not curated, not topic-sorted, and quite repetitive, but I think it still might be useful. Would it make sense to move it to the project space and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index? (Posting here because the talk page for /Index redirects here.) -- Yair rand ( talk) 03:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if this is not the right place to raise this. I've noticed that ARCAs seem to regularly take longer than full-blown cases to resolve. They last for months and months; and not just this year, but last year, too. I thought ARCA was supposed to be lightweight and faster than a full case? One thing I notice is that full cases have public deadlines, but ARCAs do not. Should we add a deadline to ARCAs? Like, 7 days for statements, 7 days for Arbs to weigh in? Levivich dubious – discuss 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
In summary, I think the process of both forming and expressing the consensus of DAILYMAIL has been thoroughly tainted by totally unacceptable conduct, to such an extent that there isn't even any point in pretending this is not already a matter for the Arbitration Committee to resolve, even if that might technically be an impproper act of queue jumping.
I had a hunch that arguing the Daily Mail had not been given a fair shake by Wikipedia would be a tough road on Wikipedia, but even I was amazed to see that gaslighting and censoring was the immediate go to reaction to my efforts.
This is unacceptable. My points are perfectly valid, they deserve to be considered properly, even if they may not be entirely original, and in not doing so, specifically in the manner they are preventing it, the Wikipedia community is effectively proving my suspicions correct.
I have absolutely no confidence that if I raise the gaslighting and censoring as issues for dispute resolution at any stage lower than this Committee, that I will get anywhere at all, because the people doing it are apparently the very same people who would be passing judgement there too, namely Administrative users. I fear that I would be blocked well before I had crossed all the required bridges. I may even be blocked for this simple request, even though it affects nobody who is happy to ignore it as the ravings of a mad man, who knows.
If it is true that issues put before this Committee are the first and only time it is not just expected, but required, for people to prove their claims with evidence, if this is the first and only time where popular opinion won't come into it at all, then is it at all possible to have the issue of DAILYMAIL be considered without all the required prior steps?
Before anyone says it, perhaps as a perfectly innocent reply rather than just more of the same gaslighting, I am well aware the DAILYMAIL issue has had wide participation from Wikipedia editors. But when you're not even allowed to stand behind a true fact, even as a minority of one, such is the apparent fear it induces that pulling at that thread might make the whole thing fall down, even that doesn't mean a decision is right, much less is consensus.
Brian K Horton ( talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
(I wrote this before I realised Newslinger had asked for me to be banned, which, if he succeeds, will rather prove my point I think). Brian K Horton ( talk) 17:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The current case is a perfect example of why there should be a means of short-circuiting a case without the need for the usual arbmaj. I have no idea how this could be achieved.
By means of some kind of box-check plus link that has to be provided in order to save the page, perhaps? Or a mandate that no ANI link=no previous attempt at resolution, so can ne archive immediately by a clerk.
Obviously, it couldn't be automatic; obviously some cases have to come straight here without stopping at Go.
Maybe something akin to CSD perhaps, whereby the principle that "If you have to stop and think, it's probably contentious" applies. But cases like this are simply going to waste everyone's time. Loads of people are going to turn up and say the same thing when the result is a foregone conclusion, and X-amount of arbs are going to have to give their already limited time to this rather than, say, that thing that lasted three months. —— Serial # 11:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be something hinky with the close statement on this. The draft notice says "Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban Lightbreather (talk · contribs) has been closed as unsuccessful. Lightbreather may file another appeal to the committee in six months' time." With (as I read it) 8-2 Support. The close statement says exactly the opposite: "Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The following remedies of the Lightbreather arbitration case are rescinded: site ban (4.3.1)". Ideas? AKAF ( talk) 11:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Following a successful appeal ...text is the original motion that then proceeded to be discussed. When that discussion concluded, the result (
Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban...) was posted. The former, see, was what was being suggested; the latter is what actually happened. (Non-arb comment, of course) All the best! —— Serial 11:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Worm That Turned and David Fuchs: Regarding this request here is a more thought-out proposal for a supplement to the Anti-harassment RfC. Please let me know what you think of it.
I hope this is what you want. If not, please let me know here. I will check back in at least a few days before I make an RFC out of it, and I encourage any arbitrator or clerk to preempt me if they want to. EllenCT ( talk) 14:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to complain against all the leading sexuality and lgbt related editors in english wikipedia for doing partiality in lgbt related articles and using and interpreting the policy partially in different cases. They allow homosexuality of ottomans in LGBT in Islam article but they does not allow sodom and gomorrah and lot in homosexuality article, they allow pro-LGBT view of Sigmund Freud, but they does not allow anti-LGBT view of Freud, it seems that they are deliberately advocating pro-LGBT views rather than maintaining policy and neutrality properly, wikipedia arbitration should deeply investigate this corruption. 103.67.157.117 ( talk) 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by North8000 at 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Request for removal of older Arbcom-placed restrictions.
I have topic bans on tea party movement, gun control, the homophobia article, and post 1932 american politics and a limitation to one account. Most of my restrictions originated in the 2013 tea party movement 2014 gun control cases and the newest (american politics) was placed in 2016 as a sort of “add on” condition when I came back. All were appeal able starting in mid-2017 but I’m just first asking now. I learned and wiki-evolved an immense amount from the entire process, as well as from time and experience. The newest event that any of these were based on was over 6 years ago.
Since (2016) I’ve been active in Wikipedia in wide ranging areas with an additional 12,000+ edits (now 53,000+ total) in article creation & improvement, GA reviews, helping folks out, and very active at NPP / new article curation, policy and guideline page discussions and a range of other areas which provide a diverse “proving out”. . This has all been with zero issues and zero drama of any type. This has not been due to any of the restrictions, it’s just how I roll throughout that period and now. I’m requesting that you remove of all of the restrictions to give me a clean slate. The “clean slate” aspect is more important to me than any restrictions in particular. Thanks for your consideration and of course I'd be happy to answer any questions.North8000 ( talk) 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The committee should reject vacating North8000's topic ban on Homophobia. Although it was eight years ago, his contributions there were entirely disruptive and wasted a great deal of editor's time. [6] [7] There is no reason to believe that North8000 has some unique perspective or skill that will benefit this fully developed article. The risk greatly outweighs any potential reward.
At this point, I have no opinion about whether the Tea Party topic ban should remain. Regarding gun control and post-1932 American Politics, I can only say that that topic area has settled down quite a bit in the past few years as a direct result of several editors having been topic banned and editing restrictions having beed imposed on several articles. I may have more to add later. - MrX 🖋 17:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I have only limited engagement with North8000 but I've seen no issues between them and other editors. The tbans are 8 years old, if they haven't caused trouble since I think its safe to assume they have learned better ways to deal with editorial disagreements. If problems return it's not like the tban's can't be reinstated. In cases like this we should always err on the side of assuming good faith. Springee ( talk) 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Newyorkbrad:, what about a 1RR limit on the previously restricted topic areas. That generally prevents article edit issues. I'm not sure if talk page restrictions would be needed. Allow the restrictions to expire after 6 months if there are no new issues. I admit this doesn't address talk page but it would prevent article level issues. Perhaps a strict talk page CIVIL restriction on the affected topics? Springee ( talk)
I haven't much knowledge of the other topic-bans so I'm not going to opine about them, but I would definitely oppose lifting the topic ban on Homophobia, on which North8000's 266 talk page posts wasted vast amounts of other editors' time arguing for the article to be completely re-written to include a WP:FRINGE definition of homophobia (that using the word which includes -phobia denigrates opposition to homosexuality), and accused other editors of being "activists" [11]. He eventually exhausted everyone's patience (as an example, try this conversation. It's one article, there are 6m+ others. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
In June 2020, North8000 made three comments criticizing the highly-attended 2020 Fox News RfC after the discussion had been active for over two weeks:
Fox News, which is categorized under Category:Conservative media in the United States, is a contentious subject in the field of American politics, with active arbitration remedies on the Fox News article itself. One of the RfC questions was "Is Fox News reliable for US Politics?", and the RfC had been listed under the "Politics, government, and law" RfC category. I was not aware of this topic ban when I responded to the third comment. — Newslinger talk 20:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I genuinely believe that North means well and is clueful enough not to repeat previous mistakes. Broadly speaking, I think it would be right to lift at least some of the restrictions on a trial– WP:ROPE basis. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Xeno: I would change "Unless modified by further motion, the restrictions will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to something like "Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period." to avoid ambiguity; arbcom can always modify any restriction they placed at any time, with or without explicit provision. I'd also a clause along the lines of "Any restrictions that are reimposed may be appealed at WP:AE one year after their reimposition if no alternative time frame is specified." Thryduulf ( talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
North8000 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was restricted by motion in December 2016 ( Motion regarding North80000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
DGG, you are right about the impact of empathetic physicians on the psychological state of the patient, but I think you are wrong about the placebo effect. I grew up believing exactly what you say, having read Ben Goldacre and others, but the more you look at the actual studies, the more you find that the placebo effect does not have any actual objective effect. You can go right back to the study that arguably popularised the entire field of placebo studies, Henry Beecher's 1955 paper The Powerful Placebo. When you look at the data, you find that its conclusions are completely untenable ( https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435697002035). Most papers pitching the placebo effect as a thing, use self-reported measures of subjective outcomes. When that's compared with objective measures, the effect is shown to be illusory. Example: "Although albuterol, but not the two placebo interventions, improved FEV1 in these patients with asthma, albuterol provided no incremental benefit with respect to the self-reported outcomes." { [12]) As someone who has used albuterol for many years, I would say that an intervention that makes you feel as if you can breathe but doesn't actually make it so, is not a great idea.
So I am firmly on the side of Margaret McCartney (and the late Kate Grainger) in supporting both empathetic clinical interactions, and hard-line skepticism towards any medical intervention, however superficially obvious (McCartney, for example, is a critic of some screening practices, which result in many false positives, worry, and unnecessary interventions).
The problem with pseudoscience is different, though: it is the enterprise of producing sciencey-sounding research that is not designed to test whether a thing does work, but to provide marketing support for its sale. Nobody has any trouble seeing that as a problem when it's OxyContin, but when it's acupuncture they get all outraged that one is not supporting the patient's choice (a choice guided, of course, by fraudulent claims, and thus not an informed free choice in any meaningful sense). CAM is not a fad, it is a vast and extremely profitable industry, and it is quite cynically based. TCM is basically a creature of Mao, who did not have enough doctors but wanted to pretend that he had the kind of health coverage that Western nations boasted. Office of Alternative Medicine (and its successors successors leading to NCCIH) have spent several billion dollars attempting to validate alternative therapies, thus far without success. Hatch and Harkin's DSHEA deliberately tilts the playing field in favour of SCAM by preventing the FDA from even looking at a SCAM product until after it has been shown to be harmful, a reversal of the situation for reality-based medicines. I do not think there is any problem with Wikipedia coming down on the side of reality (per Jimbo's " lunatic charlatans" comment if nothing else). You could defend the lies of SCAM if it weren't for the steady stream of people who believe the hype and die of untreated cancer. The coroner's report in the case of Penelope Dingle is one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. SCAM is not a beneficial enterprise, it is commercial., Like every commercial enterprise it is there to maximise profit and markets. Some states have mandated that naturopaths, who have basically no real medical training, must be allowed to practice as primary care physicians. Same with chiropractors, who believe that all disease is a result of disturbances in the flow of innate intelligence in the spine. Same with "Lyme literate" doctors who prescribe indefinite courses of powerful antibiotics when there is no evidence of microbial infection. This is not a victimless fraud. In my view we can and should resist the introduction of claims that serve a commercial or quasi-religious agenda, when they are not objectively correct. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Whilst I still have some time I figured I'd leave this with you for clarification. Over past couple months I've spoken to several admins re. DS procedures, mostly relating to my work on simplifying/cleaning up community sanction templates (speaking of, gentle query on if you've come to a decision re. my July email yet?), as I didn't want to file a dozen clarification requests. This ARCA stems from a discussion I had with El C, here. Would ask if you could read that section (& possibly see the diffs of change on the linked templates) as it provides relevant context for this question. I understand that the 2020 ARCA asked a very similar question to what I ask now, but given the confusion (ref discussion & incorrect template wording for years) I think it's appropriate to ask for a clear judgement.
In the 2018 ARCA, the Committee passed a motion stating that additional page restrictions apply to enforce 1RR. Namely, this meant that enforcing 1RR would require awareness procedures (incl alerting) to be met. The reasoning by the arbs was a strong feeling of it being inherently unfair to enforce 1RR on articles when the editor may not have been aware of this. Thus, a talk and editnotice alone are no longer sufficient.
In the 2020 ARCA, the Committee was going towards the idea of: the 1RR restriction [does not] require a formal alert in order to be enforced
. After close reading of both, I can only interpret this as 1RR by case remedy doesn't require any awareness, but 1RR by DS does?
Is that a correct understanding? If yes, doesn't it also logically follow that 1RR DS enforcement may use the full, broad range of discretionary sanctions enforcement mechanisms, whilst 1RR case remedy can only use increasing-duration blocks, per ArbCom standard procedures?
My next question is, is this two-tier approach to 1RR even logical? In practice, I don't think many admins see 1RR DS as different from 1RR Case Remedy. Both types of 1RR have the same basic awareness (a large talk notice and editnotice), so it's not really accurate to think editors will be more aware of one than the other. I'd also note that it is purely admin discretion on whether an article is "within the conflict area", so 1RR case remedy is also subject to the same level of "discretion", especially for sanctions like ARBPIA and Abortion which have very broad and discretionary scopes. Thus, it seems quite illogical to treat these two 'types' of 1RR as separate. I'd imagine this two-tier approach is also likely confusing & inaccessible to many editors.
DS...🤯 - also see above. Atsme Talk 📧 23:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I was not anticipating commenting here, as the topic is somewhat outside my wheelhouse, but I'm honestly dumbfounded by DGG's assertion that dealing with disruptive editors from our contentious areas will be less work than managing the DS system that allows uninvolved admins to deal with them. DGG, have you looked at the AELOG lately? Most AE reports are comparable in their length to an ARCA request, and there's far more of them; not to mention the hundreds of yearly actions that individual administrators take outside of AE. ARBCOM has taken upwards of three weeks to handle one clarification request, above. How would it fare if everything currently handled under DS was thrown in its lap? Vanamonde ( Talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction.GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Two questions:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I just came across this case in the Signpost. Regarding the question of a pattern of misconduct by JzG, Beeblebrox wrote that I feel like if there was clear evidence of a pattern of poor judgement and/or misuse of admin tools, somebody would have proffered the evidence of it during the unusually long time this request has been open.
I have some evidence of such a pattern, which I would like to contribute. It concerns an incident last month in which JzG denied the unblock request of an editor with whom he was involved in a content dispute. Since I was involved in that dispute, but not in the ones cited by MrX, I am unsure where to post this evidence. Should it be a statement in the current case, or brought to the attention of the arbitrators in some other way? Advice appreciated. Tim Smith ( talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)