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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
(This is the analysis I mentioned in my comment in the arbitrator voting section on the "Giano II wheel war" case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC))
The question of whether it is improper and a "wheel war" for an administrator to reverse another's action, or whether the wheel-warring only starts if the first action is then reinstated, has been debated inconclusively for some time now, including in prior cases of this Committee. Rather than try to analyze this by reviewing the policy pages or prior ArbCom decisions, as might be appropriate if the committee takes up a case presenting this issue, I think we ought to focus on what the policy should be.
In particular, the protocol for unblock reviews is actually a little confused now. We make a promise that blocked users can have an independent review of their block by another administrator, and blocking/unblocking may be the most important admin action there is vis-a-vis the contributors, so it's important that our policy in this area be well-understood and make sense.
Situation: Administrator A blocks. Administrator B reviews the block and decides an unblock is warranted.
There are at least four possibilities about what our policy should be about how this gets handled.
I've seen all four of these methodologies and standards relied on and defended on-wiki, and I don't know if there's any consensus as to which is "the rule." Consulting with the blocking admin is certainly best practice, time permitting, but is it absolutely mandatory?
Related questions:
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The role of discussion should be considered, too. Once someone is blocked, getting consensus to unblock is often difficult. However, blocking any established user is likely to be controversial, and getting consensus to block an established editor in the first place would be difficult in many instances. I think a system that favours the last admin action will tend to produce some admins who "shoot first and ask questions later"; it's easier to get forgiveness than get permission. Therefore, my view of how blocking *should* work is probably a variation of Birgitte's. I almost want to say that any block done without prior discussion and consensus at ANI should be reversible without prior discussion, but of course the reviewing admin really should ask the blocking admin if there are any hidden factors involved. So, at the very least, if a controversial block is undone, I don't think it should be reinstated without discussion and clear consensus - and that means somewhat more than just the consent of the unblocking admin. We should favor not the last admin action, but the unblocked situation. Bad blocks of established users are damaging to the encyclopedia, not just in the short-term loss, but in the potential for losing an editor forever. Gimmetrow 18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not have time to discuss this at length, because I am traveling, but I have time to post a very short note reiterating opinions I have stated before. The practice that allows any admin to lift a block without consensus to do so has the effect of permitting these admins to (knowingly or unknowingly) enable the very behavior that led to the block. I disagree with the argument that this causes no damage.
In the case of a truly bad block, there will be consensus to lift it; if the length is excessive there will be consensus to shorten it. Hasty unblocks prevent the discussion from developing any consensus or coming to a conclusion. If there is disagreement about whether a block was valid, with sound arguments on each side and no consensus, we should defer to the judgment of the admin who made the block. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
B can go ahead as the reviewing administrator and unblock. Anything else discourages admins from self policeing. Geni 01:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The wheel warring case (currently titled "Giano II wheel war") should be renamed to not include Giano's name if ultimately accepted. There's no need to throw Giano's name around if he has left the project. He should be able to leave in peace. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I hereby apply for permission to take part in the guidelines discussion per [1]. MeteorMaker ( talk) 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any point in setting a target date if it constantly slips? Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi AC, I was wondering (and feel free to close this if it's too much to ask) if there was any way that you could, as a condition for unbanning (formerly?) disruptive editors. . .keep them from participating in community discussion(s) concerning currently disruptive editors. You know 'birds of a feather' and all that. I don't know that they make that big of an impact, but still. Thanks, R. Baley ( talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As Alastair Haines seems to have a continuing habit of ignoring his RfA sanctions (See his 1st and 2nd arbitration enforcement requests as well as his block log), it would be quite useful to actually have access to his RfA (without having to dig it out of the history every time). I understand that it is often a courtesy to blank RfAs for editors who use their real names. However, I don't think we should be paying a courtesy to someone who isn't interested in respecting their RfA, and indeed is probably benefiting from its inaccessibility. Thus, I would like to request that his RfA be unblanked, so that it is easier to access and cite when necessary. Kaldari ( talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sixteen days ago, this application was filed. Since the Arbcom imposed a 14-day time limit on itself in this decision, I wonder if there has been any progress made? MeteorMaker ( talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"There wasn't a single rationale but it might be helpful at this point to explain that the motion was drafted in general terms. How the committee reacts to individual applications – accompanied perhaps by a summary of what the editor intends to say, along with assurances of good conduct and promises to avoid inflammatory rhetoric – is an entirely different matter."
OK, I apply again then, this time with an explicit assurance of good conduct and a promise to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. A summary of what I intend to say: In the event of a resurgence of the no-sources-needed let's-override-bothersome-policies-with-consensus tendencies that have plagued us in the past, I intend to insist on compliance with WP policies and guidelines and on backing up claims with sources. Otherwise I intend to remain basically silent, because I'm still in the process of catching up on my regular job after the hundreds of hours I put into the ArbCom J&S case. MeteorMaker ( talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertent? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.
(If this has been addressed elsewhere or doesn't need a clarification, please just fix any instructions which need to show it, and remove this request.)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I was meaning to ask why we don't just toss up a nice pretty and small "global" header template (the sort that goes dead center, up top) on each of these main RFAR pages so that people just know where to go for what? rootology ( C)( T) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been enforcing elements of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann over the last day, and it strikes me that it either needs more teeth, or Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs a level of protection or editing sanctions that are not currently applied to it. The basic problem here appears that there are two camps of editors who disagree about what the actual subject of Ancient Egyptian race controversy should be about. Now, since I have taken only administrative action on this article, I am not going to weigh in on what the correct subject of the page is (even though I do, indeed, have an opinion). The reason for this is that the above referenced ArbCom case only really provided the ability to act against disruptive editing. What is also needed, however, is a statement on the actual subject of the article. In other words " Ancient Egyptian race controversy IS about XYZ, and any editors who seek to change the article so that it is about ABC are engaging in disruptive editing". Without this key piece, the article is just going to jerk back and forth ad infinitum.
Currently relevant discussions can presently be found:
It looks like this goes back years, and since the protection is currently in place for only one month, it would seem reasonable to have a process for resolving the issue which does not include constantly locking down the page and blocking people. Hiberniantears ( talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman included me as a party in his request. I do not want to be a party of this. Can you please remove me from the list? Do you have any rules that define who must be a party? I was not a subject of any editing restrictions or sanctions in Diguwren case. Biophys ( talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
... is a problem in the recent Eastern Europe cases. Does anybody object to adopting the rule against threaded discussion as in WP:RFAR on this board? I.e., one statement per user, and any threaded dicussion belongs on the talk page. Sandstein 20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Sandstein's suggestion is that its likely outcome would add a new layer of political gaming to AE. It would create a tactical motivation for editors to collude offsite (probably more so than already happens) in order to make an effective 'first strike' against a given target, who could only rebut on the talk page where posts are less likely to be read. Conscientious admins would have to toggle between AE and AE talk to get a fair view of the actual situation, while less careful admins would likely get taken in some of the time by misleading claims and cherry picked evidence. Everyone agrees the current situation is bad, but this proposal would be likely to make it worse. Durova Charge! 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If we agree to change the format, do we need to set up Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as a talkpage of its own, rather than having it redirect here? Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case currently redirects here as well, but AE might have a higher talk volume. Sandstein 09:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A problem is that discretionary sanctions may work in small disputes, but when a dispute reaches critical mass the noticeboard format breaks down. The most viable solution might be to designate certain large-scale cases to a new format modeled after the evidence sections of an actual arbitration case. Crud would still accumulate, but it would be sequestered and easier to separate wheat from chaff.
In the larger picture--this is as good a place to say it as any--earlier this year when I complained about "milquetoast" decisions and "passing the buck", I took it for granted that baseline Wikipedian norms would remain in effect with Committee deliberations: substantial evidence of recent policy violation should always be requisite for sanctions. Between pacifism and the nuclear option there must be a happy medium where remedies apply to primary antagonists based upon sound evidence. As Shell Kinney affirms above, there is no substitute for elbow grease. Durova Charge! 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Which page has the edit notice for WP:AE containing the template for filing requests? I'd like to edit the request template. Jehochman Talk 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to unilaterally criticize each other? I am troubled by ongoing accusations of bad faith, trolling, and stalking [10] [11] [12] [13] made against me by an editor with whom I am not to interact. To keep my equanimity, and avoid running afoul myself of the editing restrictions, I will not follow suit, respond to the accusations, take this issue to forums other than Arbcom, or otherwise interact with the editor (hence my not mentioning them by name or notifying them). However, these personal attacks are troubling and I wish they would stop. They follow many similar accusations made both before and during the arbitration, and were themselves a subject of the arbitration. If the aim of the no-interaction remedy is to stop this, and restore a healthy editing environment, surely that remedy means to stop repeating the accusations, right? Wikidemon ( talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The editor seems to be intentionally mistyping my user name (changing the numbers).
I don't know if it is intended to be annoying, rude, provocative, cute... But it should stop. Jd2718 ( talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The observation that editors desysopped by arbcom have trouble being resysopped through RFA is valid, but so what? The community's reluctance to have them back as admins is perfectly legitimate and arbcom shouldn't second-guess it. John VDB's suggestion of probationary re-sysopping during which EK is advised to do some consensus evaluations (I think this mostly means afd) prior to reconfirmation sounds unbeneficial.. EK could instead simply enter a voluntary mentorship with some admin without being resysopped. Under the mentorship, EK would do some non-admin AFD closures for a while, with the understanding that EK could close afd's as "delete" and the mentoring admin would perform the actual deletion (without necessarily endorsing it--the closures would be reviewable at DRV like any other afd closures). After doing this for a while, EK could start another RFA and invite participants to check out his recent afd closures. No temporary or probationary resysopping is required. 67.122.209.126 ( talk) 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please put the box that showed the status of all open arb cases at the upper right corner back? Removing it has made following Arbcom cases significantly more annoying. Jtrainor ( talk) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Do I need to add other parties to the new request I have opened today re use of disputed/occupied territories etc.? I've not named anyone and what to focus on how to resolve this matter rather than on individuals. An option could be to name every contributor to the 19 threads I have identified this year, but that seems excessive. Also I have noticed several editors since topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine area among the previous contributors. On the other hand picking out individuals (the admin who closed the RfC? the editor who questioned his appropriateness as an impartial judge? etc) might seem invidious. I'm tempted just to flag this matter at the IPCOLL and the Wikiprojetcs for Israel, Palestine and Syria. Any views?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Through the first half of 2009, the Arbitration Committee considered 111 requests, voted on 41 motions, publicly heard 19 cases, and drafted and voted on 928 case proposals.
There were 59 case requests, open on average for five days, with 63% declined, 29% accepted, 7% disposed by motion and one withdrawn. There were 52 clarifications and other requests, open on average for 11 days. Motions were open on average for four days, with 61% passing. Cases were open on average for 60 days, with the longest being open for nearly five and a half months.
With respect to case requests, Wizardman had the highest voting percentage of 93, followed closely by Casliber with 89, against an average of 61, and a low of zero. Coren and Stephen Bain shared the highest accept percentage of 53, and Vassyana had the highest decline percentage of 80. With respect to clarifications and other requests, Vassyana commented on the most (32). Overall, Carcharoth could be considered to have been the most active, with the lowest DNA (did not act) percentage of 18, against an average of 47 and a high of 86. With respect to motions, John Vandenberg had the highest voting percentage of 79, with many arbs following closely behind, against an average of 59 and a low of 18.
Wizardman drafted over a quarter of the cases (five) with Newyorkbrad drafting three, while John Vandenberg drafted the largest case, as measured by number of proposals (186, 100 passing), and Rlevse drafted the second largest (132, 98 passing). Six arbs were virtually tied for the highest case proposal voting percentage: Carcharoth and Sam Blacketer, (with 94) and FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, and Wizardman (with 93). Arguably, Rlevse was on average the quickest to act on case proposals, with Casliber second.
Comparing Apr-Jun with Jan-Mar, the number of case requests declined 36% and the percentage of cases accepted declined 15%, thus the number of cases accepted was almost halved. The number of clarifications and other requests increased 74%, the number of cases closed more than doubled, and the number of case proposals considered increased by more than five times.
Comparing the first half of 2009, with the first half of 2008, the number of case requests dropped dramatically from 105 to 59, continuing an apparent trend, and the number cases heard dropped from 27 to 19, while the average case duration nearly doubled from 32 days to 60.
For complete details see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009.
Paul August ☎ 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the recent changes, there is no link to the case archive on this page, or, at least, none immediately visible. There used to be a link at the bottom of the open and recently closed cases to the full list.
Since my comments were moved ( first time, second time) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I would respectfully suggest that in the future admins refrain from opening arbitration enforcement requests based on editor lobbying—and instead suggest the editor do so themselves so that editor's role in such actions is not, however unintentionally, obscured, nor their position appear to be given more credence a priori. If an admin independently observes untoward behavior, they would obviously not be prevented in any way from requesting appropriate action. PētersV TALK 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How do I get arbcom to review this banning [18]? An admin has stepped in and unilaterally banned everyone on one side of an editing dispute. This seems problematic. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on an answer to whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The admin has refused to provide diffs and says the bans are based on a pattern of behavior. How can this determination, which I totally disagree with, be reviewed? The editors who were banned don't even agree on the basic content issues, they simply agree that an admin rolling in and reverting months of their collaborative work and then having other admins ban them is improper. Surely this isn't how we do things here??? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 08:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
With Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#William_M._Connolley_(2nd), after the process began but before formal acceptance, it became clear to me that certain editors were continuing to be highly involved in the primary matter (WMC's actions around cold fusion and me and my ban), so I added them as parties. One had already added himself. Mathsci edit warred to keep his name and the proof of notice out. On the one hand, those names were not there when arbitrator voting began; on the other, I was not aware that one could refuse to be a subject of arbitration, and I know of an editor who was added, at one point, while he vigorously objected. Names can also be added during the process, but I'm not clear on procedure. I added the names, not to widen the arbitration into a cold fusion arbitration, though I think all of the editors have edited cold fusion, but solely in connection with the behavioral disruptions and the ban. -- Abd ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
[19] William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
WMC's edit summary: (rv yet another addition by Abd. You've been told to stop doing this.) No, WMC, the community was told that any further edit warring would result in a block. You just edit warred. I did not. I added a new party, which I'm allowed to do, it's part of the filing and no uninvolved editor has told me I can't do it. There has been no consensus that the names added were edit warring, they are original content, relevant to the case, and the removal by Mathsci was considered edit warring, as must, now, be yours. Fascinating. -- Abd ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If Adb or WMC continue this silly edit war, I'll block them myself. This is totally silly and lame. And one of you is an admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Why everything touched by Abd becomes such a complicated mess?.... -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Post removed per bainer. Mathsci ( talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am ok accepting Jimbo's explanation that "toxic personalities" wasn't referring to Bishonen. The reference evoked an image of Wikipedia as one of those uppity boarding schools with a high academic reputation and student discipline supposedly enforced by prefects, where unfortunately the school is overrun with idiots who run around naked shouting "wooga! wooga!" while snapping towels at people and generally driving everyone nuts. For some reason the prefects do nothing about this until one of the better prefects, Bishonen, can't stand it any more and lets loose some profanities at one of the idiots. At that point the head prefect, Jimbo, regretfully sends Bishonen to 3 hours of detention even though the profanities were well-justified--prefects are supposed to follow higher standards than that. The bigger question is, why are the prefects letting the idiots run rampant to the point where they could cause Bishonen to lose her cool? Those idiots are the toxic personalities Jimbo referred to. Future Perfect At Sunrise (iirc) at one point said something to the effect that only a fork of enwiki accompanied by mass bannings could fix this place. The mainspace editing environment has really gotten damn near intolerable. detox.wikipedia.org anyone?
Meanwhile, Bishonen might find it relaxing to take a break for a while, if this is really bugging her so much. If she can't find enough AGF to believe the explanation applied from the beginning, maybe she can treat it as a retcon and go along with it anyway. Mediation with Jimbo might or might not help. Yeah, the block in retrospect was probably an error on Jimbo's part, but not all that egregious a one, and not a frequent one either. And while I hate Jimbo's guts (and I mean that in a nice way), he is certainly supplying better leadership than the towel snapping idiots ever will, so I'd prefer that he continue to exert it even though I disagree with him on some pretty fundamental things. Anyway, holding an arb case over the block would be ridiculous. There are plenty of both random toxic cretins and really evil assholes trying to corrupt wikipedia who need the venom a lot more. It's senseless to burn one's energies battling something that was done with good intentions where the other person is trying to make nice, even if it was something dumb. 67.117.147.249 ( talk) 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. Comments and feedback are invited on the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth ( talk) 04:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
SV wrote: "He also wanted to use a different account when editing from work for privacy reasons, so he would use Geogre at home, and Utgard at work."
I'm interested in knowing exactly how this practice was supposed to protect Geogre's privacy. Can SV or Geogre explain? 67.117.147.249 ( talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it "Post Crazy-ass Requests for Arbitration Week" or something? My calendar only has lunar phases and major holidays, but I surely don't want to miss out on the week's festivities if so! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems like nothing has happened on the Obama articles amendment for a while. The last edit to the case was 5 days ago. Do these things go stale, or is there always some form of resolution (even if it is a resolution to not amend anything)? Is the Arbitration Committee looking for additional statements/comments? Just wondering. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally I keep pretty close tabs on case requests I file. This is an exception, partly because it's likely to attract greater than the usual share of trash talk that's better left ignored and partly because other obligations (related in substantial part to a recent Signpost open letter) really are taking up a lot of time. Other than FPC I'm not checking much ATM; looking at RFAR about once a day. If something urgent arises please ping me at user talk. Durova 284 03:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Section 1.4 of the motion says "Although the use of this latter phrase was later clarified as intending to refer to incivility in general, the phrasing was careless and has been interpreted, reasonably, by some editors as referring to Bishonen" citing this diff as the clarification. The diff doesn't say anything about incivility. It refers to toxic behavior in a more general way. Toxic behavior of all kinds pervades Wikipedia, and only a little bit of it has anything to do with incivility. I personally prefer to interpret the diff as referring to a wider range of toxicity that Wikipedia admins should stop tolerating. Occasional inappropriate cussing between editors can be annoying, but it is pretty far down the list of things I'd want more people blocked for if it were up to me. In any case, I request the arb motion to be fixed to reflect what the diff actually says, not what someone seems to have projected onto it. 67.117.147.249 ( talk) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, a thread at WP:ANI was auto-archived before being formally closed, but after a possible consensus for sanction. It's been suggested the matter be brought here. Would that be appropriate? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345. Thanks. Rd232 talk 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the amendment pass, with the current voting counts? It's been idle for three days now. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I am confused about the way things run here. 11 minutes after I filed my request for enforcement, it was closed by Shell Kinney [30], who as far as I can tell is neither a member of the arbcom nor a clerk. Shell's comment also seems to betray a misunderstanding of the issue I was raising. In case it was unclear, the provision to which I refer in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed is It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement. I think that Shell is mistaken in asserting that this particular section "specifically refers to actions of LaRouche supporters," which I should think would be unnecessary. because they don't seem to be inclined to demonize their leader. I think it is directed more at the other side, which has been a bit over-enthusiastic in using Wikipedia to "expose" LaRouche. So, how do I go about getting a second hearing on this motion? -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement, which means the enforcement of the remedies that the Arbitration Committee has issued in a case that has already closed, can be performed by any administrator (although it is most often done by experienced administrator who has taken a knowledgeable interest in this area—and often there are too few administrators working this function, which leads to excessive workload and burnout for those to take it on, so additional help is always appreciated). Indeed, traditionally, the enforcement function is not taken on by the arbitrators itself, both for workload reasons, and to preserve their impartiality if the dispute later returns to the committee. (I can, however, readily understand the confusion created by the fact that in the full arbitration page layout, the enforcement noticeboard, which used to be a separate page, is now included with the other sections on which the decision-making is by the arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure who exactly is doing it, but I have been noticing systematic changes to how the Arb page is being displayed and layed out.
I, for one, would like to applaud the efforts of the volunteers improving the transparency and accessability of Arbcom and its related pages. Creating the links to other pages in a case (such as being able to jump between evidence and workshop without going back to the main page) was just the latest one that made me yell 'thank you' in my mind.
You guys take a lot of flak from a lot of angry people, I figure you should hear about the good things you do too. Things are improving, people are noticing.
And thank you. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
A pending arbitration request ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed_of_light) names me as 1 of 8 parties. A few other editors, who were not named, are active participants in the disputes that are the subject of the arbitration request. What is the procedure for adding parties to an arbitration request? Thank you. — Finell (Talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Implementation_notes
could the clerks consider a system which is a little more descriptive, listing the names of each section?
The current numbers require a person to look at the number, then scroll up to the section, and go back and forth.
For a rough example, maybe something like the bottom of the collapsed template, compare it to the current system at the top of this collapsed template. Ikip ( talk) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration decision
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 4 recused), so 6 votes are a majority. Abstain votes, are neutral, they do not subtract or add to support votes. The abstains mean the same as a recuse for that one proposal, and lower the majority on the proposal. (For example, if the total active is 11 and 3 abstain, then the new number of voting arbs is 8, and the new majority is 5.) Thank you for the clear explanation Flonight!
|
Concerning the matter Stevertigo raises, I urge those Arbcom members who have declined, to reconsider.
Since Arbcom looks unlikely to take this case, the matter is being held at DRV and (formerly) at AN/I. Discussions there are generating more heat than light, and though the DRV looks likely to overturn the speedy deletion (thereby satisfying Stevertigo, at least to some extent), I think what we have here is, at heart, a conduct issue at least as much as it is a content one. DRV is much better suited to deal with content than conduct.
What Arbcom, DRV and AN/I have in common is that each one is, arguably, the "highest court in the land" in its jurisdiction. From our current procedures, DRV is the one place from which a content decision cannot be taken elsewhere, while AN/I deals with immediate issues of conduct.
I believe our previous experience with the involved users and the high-profile nature of the content shows that this matter will stay with the "highest court in the land" that will accept the case in perpetuity. Neither side is willing to give up, and both sides have points that have merit, which they are willing to repeat ad infinitum. In other words, in its current venues, the matter will not achieve closure.
I feel that closure is highly to be desired and that Arbcom is the only venue that can achieve it.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Powergate92 ( talk · contribs), who was not a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong, has suddenly begun acting as Mythdon had done prior to the case, leading to several motions later on that affected his ability to edit Wikipedia. In short, he has pointed out a mistakenly labeled rollback. I'm aware that there have never been any sort of sanctions against him, but in the last few months he acted in concert with Mythdon in a few discussions that took place prior to the initial topic ban against Mythdon.
Should he be any more allowed to make the same comments that an acquaintance of his was prevented from doing?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear arbcom, things on the ADHD talk page have been escalating, personal attacks, baiting editors, games etc. I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep my cool but I am trying. Scuro was meant to be appointed a mentor within a month of the arbcom but this has not happened. Is there a reasonn for this?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the enforcement provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking was that after three months passed from the case's closure, the Committee would review the manual of style for stability ( remedy). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The project page header overprints itself in Safari. In Firefox at least it doesn't overprint, but it still looks weird. I've debugged the problem but the page is protected. Please replace the {{ArbCom notice banner}} in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header with the following:
{| style="text-align: left; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1em; margin:auto; font-size: 10pt;" | Please make your request in the appropriate section: * '''[[#Requests for arbitration|Request a new arbitration case]]''' * '''[[#Requests for clarification|Request clarification of an existing case]]''' * '''[[#Requests for amendment|Request an amendment to an existing case]]''' *: <small>This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed</small> * '''[[#Requests for enforcement|Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case]]''' * '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions|Arbitrator motions]]''' *: <small>Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case</small> |}
The new box displays as:
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
The result is much more clear, the box repositions nicely as the browser window width is adjusted, and it looks the same in both Safari and Firefox. I could also do without the ArbComOpenTasks to the right of the TOC (above would be nicer), but a little scrolling won't kill me when I'm not in full screen mode. UncleDouggie ( talk) 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This keeps coming up: that Law's otherwise inexplicable unblock of CoM is explicable once you know about interactions between The undertow and CoM. But for those of us not familiar with the prehistory, someone please say what those interactions were. William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The real question is why Tarc wasn't blocked or banned after all his incivility, after repeatedly trying to censor by deletion numerous articles he disagreed with, and why he was allowed to edit war and violate 3RR in 24 hours with only a short block that an admin helped edit war to prevent it being recorded in the log? But I got some massive punishement for 4 edits over two days with talk page discussion inbetween. It is strange isn't it. Has Tarc ever written an article? I do new page patrol a lot, and I haven't seen any. But he must have some value because if all he did was cause disruption I'm sure one of our illustrious admisn would step in to stop him. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably needs to be addressed. Is he not banned yet? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I see from his talk page that Connolley was in private communication with the Eastern European mailing list members. Will we have full disclosure of his involvement in this conspiracy on Wiki? Did it play a role in his desysop or was that based on other inappropriate behavior? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
|
This page is for discussion regarding the arbitration requests page. Is there an open request you'd like to post a meta-comment on? A comment about the page structure or operation? Other types of comments have other places where they belong, and they are unlikely to get the appropriate response here. Nathan T 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we all please stop using terms like witch hunt and crucify. Please stick to technically accurate terminology. This discussion is already heated enough. Let's stick to the facts and try to work out a resolution. Nobody is getting nails pounded through hands and feet or burned alive at the stake. I've proposed something useful, I think, on the associated project page. Only one other editor has commented thus far. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we please do something useful. I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA. This process would serve everyone, including the "accused". They deserve a clear up or down result: either remove their bits or clear them of wrongdoing. They should not be left in limbo, under a cloud of suspicion. Jehochman Talk 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please consider trimming your statements and placing pieces here if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
To be very clear, I will not be satisfied with any sort of slap-on-the-wrist admonishments. Before any wrongdoers are forgiven, they must convincingly state that they will not repeat the wrongdoing. Thus far we have not seen such statements. Until we do, the de-admin process should continue.
Jehochman
Talk 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The number of opinions below is extremely large. Many other members of the community might like to express an opinion but they have probably refrained from making this page even longer. Upon reflection, I do not like the idea of the Committee passing a motion with general principals. Policy is created by everyone, not by the arbitrators. There are objections to opening a case, yet there is no precedent for the community to remove sysop access.
To resolve what appears to be deadlock, I request a novel discussion format: ArbCom orders and supervises an RFC in lieu of the usual evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages. A separate RFC for each respondent would be created in Arbitration-space, and be supervised by the clerks and arbitrators. After giving the entire community (7 | 14) days to provide views, the arbitrators would vote on whether each administrator retains the trust of the community. Any who do not would immediately lose sysop access.
The advantages of this approach include:
I suggest this process be put to use now, and be considered as something that can be used from time to time in the future whenever there are serious doubts about whether an administrator has lost the trust of the Community.
Submitted for your consideration, Jehochman Talk 13:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel this would be productive or helpful.
This case clearly rests in the Arbitration jurisdiction, it is their responsibility to make a ruling as to if the administrators have acted responsibly, and what sanctions if any there should be. I do not see any ability for an RFC, of any kind, to produce a reasonable and civil debate in these circumstances.
I also feel it is important that the Arbitration Committee understand that this now rests with them, and solely with them, to make the final decision. And the responsibility for that decision rests with them, and how they handle it will impact the future of the Committee.
If the Committee are not prepared to defend previous sanctions from being circumvented by covert Administrator collusion, then they whole arbitration process is irrelevant since sanctions become meaningless. -- Barberio ( talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If this is done, all notable cases of administrators aiding any kind of socking should be put up. This should not be specified to the current instance, but retroactive to other instances. Most notably, Bishonen for long term aiding a sock puppet harassment campaign against multiple users. To have this only used for one instance instead of all outstanding instances would be completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I suspect a lot of the people not commenting are doing so because they don't want to feed this silly drama. And yes, I know, I'm not helping matters by pointing that out. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea. I'm not sure it's workable but it's at least worth kicking around to see if it could be. Whether adopted here or not, I think the idea of "supervised RfC" might have some merit, independently, as a lot of RfCs tend to be rather in need of a bit of supervision/clerking. But perhaps as an optional thing, chosen by the intiators at the start? ++ Lar: t/ c 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The criteria for adminship is "having the trust of the community". Arbs should seek broad community input when evaluating whether that trust exists. Nothing controversial about that.
Wikipedia still doesn't have a way to check whether existing admins have community trust. In practice, trust isn't a requirement anymore. Admins don't necessarily "have the trust of the community". For practical reasons, we've had to employ an alternate standard: an admin is someone who "did have the trust of the community at some point in the past".
The Arbs should always consider an editor's level of trust with the community when considering admin status. Surely, each Arb already tries, privately and informally, to evaluate community trust. But in some cases, the project could benefit by explicitly gauging trust in a public, clear, and transparent way. Just one more tool in the toolbox that the arbs could use, when needed, to get the job done. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a very important distinction between ArbCom itself determining the best solution, and ArbCom evaluating the community's determination of the best solution.
The admins in question are admins as a result of the faith the community expressed for them during their RFAs. If that faith no longer exists, it's up to the entire editing community to say so -- not simply ArbCom. It would be entirely appropriate, in my view, for ArbCom to evaluate the discussion and make a determination of community consensus; but that's a very different thing than the motions currently under consideration, which have ArbCom itself evaluating whether de-sysopping the people in question is appropriate.
Therefore, I strongly support Jehochman's proposal, as the only active proposed motion that permits all members of the community to weigh in on whether or not they trust the editors in question with the tools.
- Pete ( talk) 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people would seem to appreciate an answer to this question. Please provide answers for all members of the community. Clerks: feel free to provide links to the answers to this question if they've already been provided on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I need to apologize—to Risker and the entire committee—for the rollback I made over this section. [32] It reflects poorly on the committee and I had no excuse for doing it. Cool Hand Luke 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can say yes or no, and we'll never know everyone who knew for sure. Therefore, the arbs/admins who are coming forward and admitting that they knew are being crucified. I don't think it's fair. I don't think there's much to gain by trying to find every single editor who maybe knew, because there's no way to ever find out for sure. hmwith ☮ 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Nashville meetup was planned as a BRC meetup, but everyone was free to attend and not nearly all the attendees are members of the BRC, which is not an actual cabal. A few of the planned attendees, including Chip, were not able to make it for various reasons. I like how the conspiracy theories are spiraling out, though. Like we all conspired and planned to promote Law into adminship to do our bidding. I talk to Chip on the phone like three days a week and chat with him online occasionally. I rarely knew what he was up to on-wiki. Hardly anything underhanded. You, SlimVirgin, speak of needing to be able to ask questions without being accused of something untoward. Consider that we can't answer without out intentions being assumed as the worst possible. People aren't looking for answers. Seriously, look at that RFAR. Some people are, but these calls of witch hunts and crucifixions are valid. Answers aren't what most people are looking for, because they've already decided what the "truth" is. Lara 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure none of you sat down and hatched an actual plot. But it's like the myth of the boiling lobster, that if you raise the heat of the water slowly, he doesn't feel so much pain. Bit by bit, several admins—and others with higher permissions—got sucked into watching someone lie to gain adminship, because they were part of a group of friends, and so no one stopped to think, "Hang on, should this be happening?" A mindset emerged, an example of groupthink, where people weren't thinking clearly as individuals. The point of asking questions now is to find out why that happened so easily, and whether we can put checks in place to minimize it in future. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a serious factual mistake in my Statement by uninvolved Finell in the above referenced arbitration request. I struck out the erroneous paragraph with an explanation. Please look at the change, as I do not want anyone to be influenced by my erroneous "evidence". I apologize for making this error. Finell (Talk) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to have become a new tactic, that in order to try to derail a case someone will make an accusation of past misconduct against the person filing the case.
This kind of mud slinging can't be allowed to continue. It confuses the issues of the cases, it makes it harder to read the case sections by filling them up with unrelated text, it makes the job harder for the Arb Com by turning up the heat.
So I think I'd advise the clerks to operate with a new rule.
Accusations of bad conduct unrelated to the case at hand should be immediately removed from case requests, workshops or other case pages. The only time they should be allowed is when the ArbCom request a past history of a particular editor's behaviour. Additionally, editors who make unfounded accusations in this way should be given a civility warning on their talk pages.
If you want to make accusations against another editor before the ArbCom, file a case against them, or stay quiet. Do not piggyback on a separate unrelated or only distantly related case, do not make unsubstantiated or vague accusations, the phrase 'coming from you considering what you did in' should never be seen on these pages. Editors, you are not pigs, do not play in the mud. -- Barberio ( talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This proposal seems to have pretty good support. Would you like to work with this rule, or do you see problems here we can't? -- Barberio ( talk) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The bifurcation of motion and case into separate sub pages fragments discussion when they are in fact quite linked together. Can something be done about this please?
In addition, I've noticed that clarification requests now languish considerably longer than they should. I understand that they are usually really low on the priority list, but the split pages makes them look outright forgotten.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Arbs should have noted that Law had resigned his adminship and requested that, in light of his good contributions, he take a short wikibreak. They should have asked the community to work out via a consensus process a set of policies on reporting block and ban evasion. The Arbs should also have offered up a streamlined block and ban review process and suggested a process for reform of our sanction and enforcement approaches.
Those involved in the RfA where disclosure wasn't adequate should have been admonished to do better and to at least avoid the appearance of impropriety and conflicts of interest. All editors should have been reminded to use discretion and keep the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Jehochman should have been admonished for fanning the flames and pushing this disruption as a score settling campaign. We all could have gotten back to editing long ago. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There was only ever going to be one way to prevent this incident turning into a cause célèbre and as only one two of the three protagonists has have taken it, here we are. There seem to be two main approaches being offered by contributors to this debate. One group, observing the relatively trivial short-term effects of the controversial actions in question call for restraint and lament the drama. Another group, concerned with the potential medium-term damage to the encyclopaedia’s reputation, request firm and decisive action.
I am in the latter group and the problem as I see it is has nothing to do with deleting pages, at random or otherwise. It is that faith in the integrity of administrators as a group is declining due to this and other controversies. It is simply not credible that we can be seen to flout community policy and then say “get over it”. If Arbitration Committee cannot, or will not stop the rot, another way will have to found, however dark and dangerous the way. We have become a large and bloated empire, and if “administrator” becomes associated in readers and editors minds with lying, cheating, cabalism and general venality, the end result is easy to imagine.
I bear no ill-will to any of those involved. Whatever their shortcomings, they too are victims of a system that is in danger of failing us all, and for which we must all take some responsibility. Ben Mac Dui 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
←I came upon this while reading background on the "Law issue" (which seems to be everywhere on Wikipedia at the moment), and I just wanted to make a point about this ACORN/Obama thing that many people seem to have forgotten. Hopefully this is not seen as a violation of my Obama-article topic ban! During the heady days of edit warring and POV pushing that went on somewhat before ArbCom tidied things up a bit, massive efforts to add Obama to the ACORN article and ACORN to the Obama article took place. This sort of activity was precisely why an ArbCom case became necessary. That Obama is barely mentioned in the ACORN article now is irrelevant. I took "broadly construed" to mean any article that either mentioned Obama, or was tentatively related to Obama in some way - and ArbCom evidently agreed. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, non-registered editors should be barred (or at least restricted) from articles related to the Troubles in Ireland. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
A new Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2. This RFC focuses on the composition and selection of the committee; specifically, how many members should be on the Arbitration Committee, how long should their terms be, and how should they be selected? The issue of a Public vs Secret ballot is also under discussion, as is the issue of Support/Oppose voting vs Preferential or Cumulative Selection. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana's second statement is factually wrong in several ways:
Vassyana, I've engaged in more heated discussions than this RFAR in the past, and other editors and I have been able to re-examine our initial positions and sometimes change our minds. (I changed my mind in the AfD.) Please show the same willingness to re-examine your position. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not the remedies for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles should be modified, to additionally authorize discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at: Wikipedia:ANI#Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles. -- El on ka 17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm on the very periphery of this dispute, but part of the problem as I see it is that there is confusion and disagreement over what articles are related to The Troubles. For example in the recent spat over motorway article names, in which I was involved, there was actions taken and statements made that were characterised as Irish or British nationalist by some parties and not by others. While it is my (non-neutral) opinion that at least one of the editors involved has some Irish nationalist opinions that she allowed to get in the way of objectivity, I would not class this dispute as being "Troubles related" - even if some of the editors involved are also involved in disputes on articles are undoubtedly related (I am not involved in those articles, but was involved in the motorway naming dispute, for example). Similarly I noticed editors involved with the British National Party article comment that although it is about British nationalism, they did not regard it as "Troubles related" and (like me) were largely unaware of the troubles-related articles disputes, and did not therefore feel it was appropriate for that article to be subject to the same restrictions.
What I think therefore would be very useful would be for a clear statement from the arbcom on what sort of articles are involved and which aren't, otherwise I forsee the potential for any article dealing with anything to do with the British Isles (in the broadest sense), Great Britain or Ireland to be drawn into the conflict, and a clear way of getting independent opinions in the case of disagreement over whether something is "troubles-related" or not. Perhaps remedies, etc would be better stated in terms of involved users as well as or instead of article-based. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Jack_Merridew MBisanz wrote:
WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed instructs that a notice shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles, which was apparently done by adding a very large box to {{ WikiProject Scientology}}. [36] After a complaint at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, the message was adjusted to hide inside banner shells. [37] [38] It was brought up earlier today that this causes the banner to no longer be visible on these pages, in violation of the ArbCom instruction.
As a compromise between the need for giving notice of the ArbCom decision and the desire to not overload the banner shell, I have made an edit to display the warning in a "collapsed" format when inside banner shells. An example may be seen at Talk:Karen Black.
Is this acceptable? Anomie ⚔ 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Durova has clearly breached the 500 word limit. Could a clerk please refactor the picture - I don't mind whether you cut off the top half, or the left side. Privatemusings ( talk) 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm really sorry for the disruption, but I just suppressed some text from the current request. An editor posted some private email they were sent, then immediately requested redaction. I've notified the rest of the oversight team on this matter. Nobody else's comments were modified in any way, so if you posted something, it's not been touched in any way. Sorry about the mess - Alison ❤ 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
May I ask how this suppression feature works? When you suppress the bad edit and subsequent revisions, content of the subsequent revisions remains, but it is impossible to link to their diffs. Is that so? When I look in the page history a bunch of diffs are struck through and grayed out, and I can't link to them. That sort of sucks for obvious reasons. Is there any way to improve this suppression feature? If not, maybe we should rename it "oppression". Jehochman Talk 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that per this rationale I will have to set my lawyers in Bratislava and San Franciso loose on DuncanHill. Hans Adler 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see more arbcom members chime in at the enforcement sections like they used to. Right now, a topic banned editor who is a self proclaimed single purpose account ( updating his userpage to look less ominous) has been permitted to resume editing (albeit on a 30 day trial) in the topic he was banned from and this was done after only one day of discussion and with only a few people chiming in. We should see more involvement from arbcom in this area.-- MONGO 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Three arbitrators have recused from a proposed case with perhaps a fourth recusal in the offing. If the trend continues there may be a shortage of arbitrators to actually weigh the case. This dilemma was predictable and likely to recur unless changes are implemented. Fortunately it is also preventable.
A solution
Convert the Audit Subcommittee into a fully independent Audit Committee. While you're at it, convert the Ban Appeals Subcommittee into a fully independent Appeals Board.
Too many people wearing too few hats is a recipe for trouble; balance of powers is a good thing. Durova 386 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth, your comments raise one big question for me... once you saw that suppression had occurred, and having already explained the meaning of Randy to the oversight list, why did you not act to reverse the suppression? You knew there was positively no outing, you knew the suppression was wrong and would inevitably be reversed, and you certainly should have expected that the longer it took for the reversal to occur the bigger the controversy would grow. Given those surrounding factors I am wondering what led you to wait for / want consensus on the oversight list as a pre-requisite for acting. EdChem ( talk) 18:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: how you can type that the AUSC report did a "good job" of anything with apparently straight fingers is prompting other questions, but I'm letting those go through to the keeper.
One part of your answer highlights a crucial issue not covered in the AUSC report, and one which concerns me profoundly. You wrote about a requirement for the person who files a request for suppression to not be privy to, and take part in, the subsequent discussion. I share some of the blame for that for not, in hindsight, asking the person who made the oversight request (and was understandably upset about what he thought had happened) to stay out of the subsequent discussion on the mailing list. The arbitrator / editor who allegedly believed the reference to Randy was an attempted outing has stated that he vented but did not request action. Now, it seems to me that Carcharoth's comments either suggest that this arbitrator is making statements that are less than forthright and complete, and that he actively lobbyed for the suppression to be kept in place, or the request and lobbying came from someone else. As the editor currently nominated for the "someone else" role is not an oversighter, this immediately raises questions about how that editor was privy to discussion on oversight-l. Were there unauthorised disclosures of oversight-l discussions?
I am going to post about this issue on the talk page of the AUSC report, as it is more suited to that location. EdChem ( talk) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Jehochman case request was removed as not mathematically possible to accept. How does that work? I thought less than half the Arbcom had voted (accept,decline or recuse) so surely it would still be possible to accept, even without anyone changing their vote? 78.130.56.146 ( talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to make my comment in the case request too long, and some of this is better on this page than that one:
So... what "it was fine, but please don't do it again"? I know this is rushed, but this is not as helpful as it could be.
I rather expected a short term "stop it for now pending further consideration", which would handily give the community a chance to do something. (Yeah, they've had X million chances, but to jump from doing nothing for 4 years to comprehensive mass deletion without even a cursory effort to source, or even to incubate some of the likelier candidates for sourcing, is prima facie ludicrous.) A later, reasoned decision to say to what extent it was OK, maybe after clarification of policy and the like, would provide a sword of Damocles to get things moving. Rd232 talk 08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So it's effectively saying "Ignore every other policy if it involves a BLP?" Just curious. Q T C 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I read it as it was fine given the circumstances, but now hopefully circumstances changed so be careful and slow down if not necessarily stop. There's definitely some articles in there that deserve to be there and a coordinated effort to ref them is a better outcome than deletion. And then there's all the rest... radek ( talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the proper way to proceed with a somewhat of an ArbCom blessing (broadly construed, as I understand it) is to keep on with the deletions of potentially harmful unsourced BLPs but at the same time to be REALLY respectful of request for undeletions or "hangon" notices, as well as being conscious of the fact that many of these articles are in fact mis-tagged rather than un-sourced. Delete them, but if anyone jumps up and says "I'll do the work" - give them the opportunity.
Also - this has been lost in the drama - but the idea that ALL BLPs, even the referenced ones, should undergo some kind of a "proofreading process" after which they get a "This BLP article's sources have been checked by a proofreader to actually match the information found in it" template (and a negative one if they haven't - at least) needs to be discussed as well. radek ( talk) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian's statement has it in a nutshell. Rd232 talk 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had not actually considered claims that a person exists to be "contentious" nor "controversial." I suggest a reasoned cessation is in order, sans acrimony. Collect ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This motion is pretty much ideal. I'd take out the "IAR", as BLP should say everything that needs to be said. The amnesty is an excellent idea too. Well done! - David Gerard ( talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
RE: Kirill Lokshin's motion to delete 60,000 articles.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago, we were talking about our concern about Wikipedia. The editor said that trolls nominate trolls. After reading this proposed motion, which most probably will pass, I think the statement should be changed to: deletionists nominate deletionits, or to use the term of Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books, bullies nominate bullies. [40]
In August 2009 Bobbie Johnson of the Guardian wrote:
Bobbie Johnson's description was accurate. In one fell swoop 8 editors are going to give this terrible disruption their blessing, deleting 60,000 articles.
As
Kelly Martin said of the
Durova "secret mailing list": "This particular list is new, but the strategy is old...It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."
[42] I truly have to wonder if this was all planned, it seems too perfect. struck, no proof.
Ikip 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@Viridae: "Potential harm to people's lives trumps petty rules. QED. " ... Explain why this argument does not lead to the conclusion that we should close down WP to public view until every statement that has any BLP implications (in any article - BLP doesn't just apply to biography articles) has been reliably sourced. Rd232 talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) That's a slippery slope argument, and a poor one. But since you asked: it is an office action that we clean up BLPs. It is also, under common sense, an office action that we provide a free encyclopedia to the public. Ironholds ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So... what "it was fine, but please don't do it again"? I know this is rushed, but this is not as helpful as it could be.
I rather expected a short term "stop it for now pending further consideration", which would handily give the community a chance to do something. (Yeah, they've had X million chances, but to jump from doing nothing for 4 years to comprehensive mass deletion without even a cursory effort to source, or even to incubate some of the likelier candidates for sourcing, is prima facie ludicrous.) A later, reasoned decision to say to what extent it was OK, maybe after clarification of policy and the like, would provide a sword of Damocles to get things moving. Rd232 talk 08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So it's effectively saying "Ignore every other policy if it involves a BLP?" Just curious. Q T C 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I read it as it was fine given the circumstances, but now hopefully circumstances changed so be careful and slow down if not necessarily stop. There's definitely some articles in there that deserve to be there and a coordinated effort to ref them is a better outcome than deletion. And then there's all the rest... radek ( talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the proper way to proceed with a somewhat of an ArbCom blessing (broadly construed, as I understand it) is to keep on with the deletions of potentially harmful unsourced BLPs but at the same time to be REALLY respectful of request for undeletions or "hangon" notices, as well as being conscious of the fact that many of these articles are in fact mis-tagged rather than un-sourced. Delete them, but if anyone jumps up and says "I'll do the work" - give them the opportunity.
Also - this has been lost in the drama - but the idea that ALL BLPs, even the referenced ones, should undergo some kind of a "proofreading process" after which they get a "This BLP article's sources have been checked by a proofreader to actually match the information found in it" template (and a negative one if they haven't - at least) needs to be discussed as well. radek ( talk) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian's statement has it in a nutshell. Rd232 talk 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had not actually considered claims that a person exists to be "contentious" nor "controversial." I suggest a reasoned cessation is in order, sans acrimony. Collect ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This motion is pretty much ideal. I'd take out the "IAR", as BLP should say everything that needs to be said. The amnesty is an excellent idea too. Well done! - David Gerard ( talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
RE: Kirill Lokshin's motion to delete 60,000 articles.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago, we were talking about our concern about Wikipedia. The editor said that trolls nominate trolls. After reading this proposed motion, which most probably will pass, I think the statement should be changed to: deletionists nominate deletionits, or to use the term of Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books, bullies nominate bullies. [44]
In August 2009 Bobbie Johnson of the Guardian wrote:
Bobbie Johnson's description was accurate. In one fell swoop 8 editors are going to give this terrible disruption their blessing, deleting 60,000 articles.
As
Kelly Martin said of the
Durova "secret mailing list": "This particular list is new, but the strategy is old...It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."
[46] I truly have to wonder if this was all planned, it seems too perfect. struck, no proof.
Ikip 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@Viridae: "Potential harm to people's lives trumps petty rules. QED. " ... Explain why this argument does not lead to the conclusion that we should close down WP to public view until every statement that has any BLP implications (in any article - BLP doesn't just apply to biography articles) has been reliably sourced. Rd232 talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) That's a slippery slope argument, and a poor one. But since you asked: it is an office action that we clean up BLPs. It is also, under common sense, an office action that we provide a free encyclopedia to the public. Ironholds ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom doesn't have the authority to dictate speedy deletion criteria contrary to what the community has decided. Don't be so clueless. A consensus is forming at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people about what to do. Don't preclude that. Jehochman Brrr 18:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
( ←) Further, lets do a little textual analysis shall we?
The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.
The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.
The first group of administrators is "commended" for "efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encylopedia.[sic.]" While the second group is "reminded" that "interfer[ing]" with the first group that "enforcement of the policy [...] takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." So, the second group, by exclusion, was not making "efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encylopedia.[sic.]" but in fact interfering with those who do over mere procedural concerns. The first group of admins is specifically cited as doing something "reasonable." The second group is given no consideration but is in fact grouped as people who care more about bureaucracy than living people (Cavaet lector, this is me reading in between the lines. I stand by it anyway). The Committee went out of their way to support one group, and didn't even give lip service to the concerns of the second group and further more, pigeonholes them. This motion is insulting.-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved from project page ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ShellKinney's clarifications are useful. Discussion is proceeding in multiple fora, and it seems very likely we'll end up with something akin to a prod tag for unsourced BLPs that cannot be removed and which will lead to deletion if the article is not sourced. If we get that then the "speedy" BLP deletions by admins will simply not be necessary. The ArbCom statement could have been worded better such that it was clear those signing on were not saying "keep deleting those articles en masse," but the clarification makes it clear that what the Arbs want to see now is discussion that leads to a solution to the problem. If some admin or admins starts up again with the deletion as these discussions continue (and I think those discussions need to be resolved in a week at the absolute most), I would urge the Arbs to inform the admin that continuing on that course would result in a block. In spite of all the drama and very bad blood surrounding this situation, we're at a point now where we can resolve it and come up with a good solution to handle unsourced BLPs which most interested editors can sign on to. That's where all the energy needs to be right now, though I'll admit that there are larger issues here in the background. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say that OverlordQ's statement is one of the best I've ever read. Apologetic, funny, and short. Nicely done! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I used the template to make my request. I titled it "WikiProject Ireland Collaboration". That is what my request was about. An editor, of whom I knew nothing, came along and reworded that title to say "Ireland article names". Part of my clarification request is about this naming debate drowning all else in certain areas such as collaboration. When some stranger, which is all I could see, had come along and drowned me with it at the first post, I was spitting expletives to myself. Of course I may think now that there was more to the edit than just renaming my request, making so that it woud point to a specific Arbcom case, but this was not something that I could see and a second clerk, another apparently random stranger, came along shortly after my revert and renamed my request again. All I know is that the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration was created upon the behest of Arbcom and that the Naming Debates, although quite a runaway train on Wikipedia, are not particularly overshadowing when it comes to debating collaboration in real life. Does it not follow that if Arbcom creates something in the process of a case which is easily taken out of context, such as Ireland collaboration being well out of the context of Ireland naming debates, Could such a request not be linked to the relevant case without deleting an appropriate title leaving all room for confusion outside? Why not? Wouldn't it be a sensible filing technique to view such as Request for clarification: Voting, Ireland article names. There you have both the request and the case linked. It is absolutely clear in my view. It doesn't seem to be extremely over-complicated. I need to apologise for being rather brusque in response to these two edits. In my experience altering the wording of another editors posts is a sackable offence if the words end up different than originally intended and I, as with more or less everybody, support that. Even if an editor is difficult to understand it is best not to alter their words. Many editors make a post which is less than straight forward and other editors make of it what they can but they are never encouraged to alter the words even if they can make nothing of the post. ~ R. T. G 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone add the category
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards to the
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header page, please? (it took a little bit of digging, but that looks like the place that the current
WP:RFAR categorization is done at.)
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 14:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I created a sandbox for the header, at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header/Sandbox. The main idea is still to add the categorization of course, but the big reason for the sandbox was actually to help straighten out the layout "problems" (for lack of a better term). The big change is to place everything in the header into a table, in order to reduce the vast swaths of whitespace (which actually become worse on lower resolution screens, believe it or not!). I'd obviously appreciate it if someone would simply move what's in the sandbox into the page, but I know better then to expect that (anytime you need to ask permission to do something on Wikipedia you've got to expect at least one objection...), so feel free to ask questions, or make comments, or criticize (if someone does decide to make the sandbox live though, be sure to uncomment the footer with all of the categorization and interwiki links, etc...).
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
For my edification: Two of the three cases at requests for clarification have been there for weeks. Is that typical? Maurreen ( talk) 05:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
(de-indent) What we try to do with arbitration, or what I try to do at least, is to try to identify the editors who are holding up consensus. I don't mean that they're in the minority (although in some cases, it's quite usual for those in the minority to try ever parliamentary trick to stop other users from making changes to their preferred version). I mean those editors, which in manner or attitude, stop consensus from forming. In a lot of areas, 80% of the editors discussing a change are relatively willing to seek consensus (although of course they're coming from different points of the spectrum). However, there's 10% on each side, who want it absolutely to be their version or no version at all. The partisans, so to speak. Those are the editors that poison the well, so to speak and are holding up the finding of consensus, Those are the editors I would seek to remove from the area so the vast majority of reasonable editors can find consensus.
Here's why I don't think that ArbCom will ever willingly get dragged into deciding content. Usually in such heated disputes, there are experts on one or both sides. They have done the legwork, provided references that support their wording. They know just about everything there is to know about the area. And then you're asking 16 men and women, to decide content that in some esoteric areas, they know NOTHING about. To mangle a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, we don't even know what we don't know! I'd much rather see if by identifying the bad actors in a topic area, the community can decide the content themselves. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't find the "edit" button in order to respond in this section: [49] Am I missing something there? 99.144.249.249 ( talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed [50]. If I reverted it, would I be violating this remedy? As of this comment, this vandalism has been undealt with for oven an hour. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Committee has often held that vandalism reversion never "counts" as an edit for topic restrictions or revert restrictions. But it is generally unwise to do those reverts oneself unless they are unarguably vandalism. It's best to just report it to someone else. — Coren (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ANI complaint involving a person behind an account mentioned in this finding from the Derek Smart case. The person in question has apparently been using another account ( SPI investigation, which I don't think should have been deleted yet) without telling anyone about it. The ArbCom finding did not pass a remedy on what to do about this person's off-wiki and on campaign against Derek Smart, and I assume that he did not notify the Committee that he had begun using another account. The "real name" account is still trying to influence the Smart article's content via the talk page. Any input on what to do about this from the current Committee-members would be welcome. Cla68 ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I should note my edit here to the template used to create requests here. While not directly targeted at this page, it is apparent to me that creating admin-only discussion sections is not-wiki. Admin-only conclusion sections, sure, but admin-only discussion appears to be located only in this one template. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you please suggest what should be done, if an AE (appeal) was archived by a bot, but it had not been finished yet. It is here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive63#Appeal_of_the_sanction_against_Aregakn. Aregakn ( talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I wouldn't usually do this, but in this case I think it's a very important information for any admin who would comment on AA2 - and probably for any arbitrator: an arbitration is currently opened on WP:ru :
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6/%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8
Please note that some coordinated actions are relevant for WP:en.
Sardur (
talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Boy, am I hallucinating, or there are really over 20 users involved in such a group, if all those names are involved, where the hell they find that much editors? It would nearly take announcing in the media's and newspapers. I guess if there was such announcement, it would make this even more problematic. Ionidasz ( talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, do you have a scan of that newspaper, or a link? Ionidasz ( talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've seen (I have just read as much as I could for 30 minutes), I think there are sufficient elements to at least request administrators attention here. I have checked some of the organized preparations in articles on Russian Wikipedia and the same was done at the same dates on English Wikipedia. Also, I have found two editors claiming a user of influence (who is an admin) over English Wikipedia have helped them a lot, one of the two specifying the help was against Armenians and Persians. I won't be able to analyse anything, I won't be available for weeks starting tomorow. But Sardur, if you have time, dig, particularly evidences of sockpuppetry used to revert war, mass voting and the use of administrators. Ionidasz ( talk) 16:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Breeins enforcement was archived without closure: [57] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 09:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Initiated by Tryptofish ( talk) at 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
SlimVirgin notified: [58]
I have two (2) specific questions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks, which states:
I also note that this caution was pointed out again at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#SlimVirgin.
I am specifically concerned about personal attacks directed at me and at other editors at pages about animal rights, broadly defined. The most recent occurrence of these was this: [59] at Talk:PETA, but there have been many, many other such instances. My bottom line reason for asking these questions is that I would like such personal attacks to stop. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Steve says he won't look at the specific "personal attack" for various reasons. I did, it's not a personal attack, it's an expression of exasperation at the requester apparently Wikistalking SlimVirgin and reverting edits regardless of the fact that the reverts reintroduce formatting and other issues. The request is an attempt to use ArbCom to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It is likely that the community should be invited to debate a non-interaction sanction between these users, and further investigate SlimVirgin's implied accusation of Wikistalking. Guy ( Help!) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} change
this request for an arbitration case isp premature
to
this request for an arbitration case is premature
because it's a typo 71.109.172.32 ( talk) 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Is very difficult. Really Wikipedia should be made easy for users, not for computer programists. Right now I feel like I am writing some kind of software. Can't they be made more user friendly. The difficulty in filling out this page prevents asking for a request. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the focus of AE should be an editor's behavior post-Arbcom. Will has created a narrative characterizing my behavior in Wikipedia that relies on pre-Arbcom editing. He, and now Fladrif, have painted a picture of repeated violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arbcom must not have agreed that it was as serious as they say, since there was no finding of fact regarding me. Is Will free to paint this narrative, which I don't have time to address point by point? Are we going to replay the Arbcom discussion here? Or should AE focus on post-Arbcom behavior? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In the ArbCom section entitled Guidance for Uninvolved Administrators, it states: "Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations" So why have you included the information below as part of your complaint since none of it is relevant or "required"? Are you attempting to poison the well?
Before I make a statement in Aprock’s request for clarification here, I’d like to know whether this request is being made in the right place, since the race and intelligence arbitration case hasn’t been closed yet. I was under the impression that requests for clarification were specifically for arbitration cases that are already closed. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand why in the case of a topic ban this includes so often article talk page ban. A user is often not disruptive on a talk page and because of his or her too strong interest in a subject may know a lot about the subject and hence give useful comments. In most cases it is easy for other editors to ignore talk page comments of a topic banned user. In my experience, it is also for the user who has been topic banned less frustrating if s/he is still allowed to give comments on the article talk page. Andries ( talk) 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
... is perfect. It shows Stevertigo's contempt for V and NOR, and that he never makes a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. This is a clear case of WP:DE and it seems to me that the weight of opinion at AN/I, which mostly echoes Jim Wae's, is sufficient for administrative action. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
...to force editors to assume good faith and talk to one another?
After observing 9-months of ongoing dramu in Eastern Europe area, with the added benefit of not being able (nor willing) to participate in it, I've come to a sad conclusion that nothing has changed, nor is it showing signs of change. Individual editors may be behaving better (or worse), but the overall picture looks as dim as it had for the past few years. This pattern needs to be broken.
What this pattern boils down to is that too many editors are no longer willing to assume good faith about the "others". They see that their only options are to "fight" them - either by getting them sanctioned or driven away from the project - or leave themselves (or be forced too). Here is a game theory analysis of that. As a by-product, various DR foras, up to and including the Arbitration ones, are saturated with EE-related requests, and the community is increasingly fed-up with that - but no solution to stop either the flood of DR requests or end the underlying conflicts giving rise to them have been found so far.
I see two potential solutions:
I will not elaborate on solution 1), as it is simple in its destructive potential, and will likely occur anyway if 2) fails (or is never attempted), beyond saying that it is not optimal from the "build the encyclopedia" perspective, as may editors involved in conflicts are good content creators, and banning them will significantly hurt the EE topic area for years to come. It should be obvious that the optimal solution is to make those editors stop fighting - but keep them contributing to the project.
I would like to elaborate on 2). Our policies encourage good behavior and punish bad behavior, however we are mostly focusing on the punishment aspect. The EE area has degenerated too far to be receptive to anything but a nuclear punishment - hence the only alternative left is trying to reform and deradicalize the editors involved (and than ban those who refuse to stop fighting even after all that...).
How to force editors to behave well?
First, create a list of editors involved in EE disputes past and present. This would be a dynamic list, with new editors added to it, till such time that the Committee / community deems that the area has stabilized and the list & related remedies can be archived. The list here is a good start, but it is obviously incomplete (I am not on it, for example...); adding all parties from the past EE ArbComs and this years' AE threads should do the trick, though.
Second, all editors on that list would be subject to certain special rules (remedies):
The rationale for the first three remedies is to lessen the burden on the community / committee and to allow editors to work out their problems without abusive forum shopping. The rationale for the fourth remedy is that collaborative content creation is the only way to rebuild good faith and trust among other editors; remember: we need not only to "put a lid" on the conflict, but to "put the fire out" and extinguish the battlefields once and for all. This will not happen as long as the editors keep thinking that those "from the other side" are "evil" and cannot be worked with. The last few remedies further reduce conflict and teach editors to work things out. Finally, let me stress that all of those remedies, after the initial set-up (which should not be difficult), should vastly reduce the workload of the community, as they essentially make the area self-policing (there could be a spike in requests for mediation, but to the best of my knowledge, we have enough mediators to handle a few more requests - I would not anticipate any big floods here).
I elaborate on some ideas here, here, here and here.
I see no body other than the ArbCom (possibly with some community input) that could solve this situation. If this is not done now, we will just continue the current trend of editors fighting, leaving and getting sanctioned, till something breaks (i.e. solution 1 is implemented).
PS. I am posting this on the Requests for Arbitration talk page, as I considered making it a formal arbitration request - but it is quite non-standard, and perhaps the Committee can use it to open a better formatted request themselves. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This proposal, to put the direct responsibility in EE cases away from ArbCom to a "body other than the ArbCom" sounds a bit strange. Given the strong presence and activities of EEML members on the English Wikipedia, I have a suspicion, this could easily entail a de facto censorship of EE topics by an EEML related superiority. --
Henrig (
talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think what we really need is to reenforce AN/I. ArbCom cannot police content disputes. AN/I ought to be a place for reasoned discussion of fidelity to core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. Somewhere along the line, some people started to think that AGF was all about personal behavior and not commitment to the encyclopedia. In my view, the test of whether or not an editor edits in good faith is their compliance with NPOV, V, and NOR. I know full well there are huge grey areas but these are just the things reasonable people can discuss at AN/I. If someone consistently shows disregard for core content policies, it is a matter of community action, not ArbCom. If the community decides that there is a pattern of disregard for core content policies, then it is up to an admin to enforce whatever sanction the community consideres appropriate. This process will not always work fast, and it will sometims work unevenly, but isn't this true of everything at WP? I happen to think anyone reading over the An/I discussion can see a mainstream view among editors who have dealt with SV. If there is a need for further commnt, we have other mechanisms than ArbCom. WP has been sliding towards giving ArbCom more and more authority in content disputes. I think this is dangerous. If ArbCom wants to help, they can propose to editors alternate strategies. But as far as I can tell the complaints people have about Stevertigo at EE related articles are virtually the same as at other articles, so I do not see how this is a particularly EE problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a good idea, though. Do you think it could be implemented on the community side, as a form of community sanction, if the ArbCom are reluctant to try it? AGK 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be glad to comment—can I have a ruling on whether doing so violates my topic ban?
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The only time I've seen forcing editors to discuss content issues in a productive manner work was when you had several people willing to oversee the situation on a constant basis. These editors usually have to be administrators familiar with the situation but not involved in article editing and they have to be able to put in a lot of time essentially babysitting the process: mediating when needed, warning as appropriate and issuing short bans or blocks if editors persist after being warned. Unfortunately, once things get to the point of needing something this drastic, it's often difficult to reach consensus and the administrators helping can expect to be continuously attacked and probably brought up at ANI and other dispute resolution venues in an attempt to remove them.
The problems I usually see with these disputes is the lack of interest in reaching a real consensus and an inability to let points go when the majority of editors feel differently. I'd be willing to bet that the EE conflicts keep seeing the same arguments and same problems over and over again. Right now we really don't have a good way to stop circular or repeated arguments about the same point which I think is the heart of some of the more serious issues. Shell babelfish 09:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As there have been no objections regarding my question regarding the posting of my thoughts, I've responded below.
On the first set of points
The mere presence of anyone’s name on any list is enough to cast aspersions. "Vecrumba, only recently returned, is on the XYZ list based on his past participation in the Baltic/EE WP:BATTLEGROUND. ..." An article-based list would be more appropriate, for example, a notice (at article talk) that "This article falls under provisions of the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe task force." This accomplishes two things:
The conflict over the Soviet legacy is over what is historical verifiable fact in the first place, not just views or interpretations which differ and which are based on the same set of verifiable historical facts. This is a fundamental distinction as compared to other so-called conflicts over Baltic/EE topics.
On the second set of points, corresponding #'s
I hope this response assists in furthering dialog.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 00:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You can't force people to assume good faith, but you can make them wish they had. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Carrots have been tried and don't work, even less so that the non-carrot approach as it merely proves to the disruptive editors they can do what they want. All this talk on this page misses the real root of the problem - ethnic warriors are fueled by hundreds of years of strife whereby they are convinced the other side is out to do them in and they must do anything to protect themselves and their version of the "truth". So, editors from both sides come to wiki to foment their version of the "truth", thereby adding more fuel to the ethnic war and giving it another forum. Well, guess what people, wiki is not here for that purpose, it's here to build a NPOV encyclopedia, and if you can't play by the rules here, go elsewhere to spread your centuries of ethnic warring. While we're on this, someone remind me, in this topic area, who was I voted to unban and how has that person been doing? FYI for the few who don't know, I virtually never vote to unban someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
@Rlevse: Now that we've sorted that out, let us assume for a moment that some editors at least do care about reputable content in the area of conflict, are tired of said conflict and attacks waged through endless screeching for sanctions seeking to control content through the application of the banhammer, and are looking for ways to neutralize the benefits of conflict escalation. Thoughts?
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Offliner has (
here and
here) made inquiries. I'm happy to WP:AGF this is not stalking and block-shopping, although Offliner has not expressed any concerns to me via talk or off-Wiki via Email. If ArbCom feels that discussing a better future in the context of arbitration talk is inappropriate, please feel free to delete my contributions here and I'll be happy to comment in January. While I frown on editors making edits on the basis of "if I don't hear any objections in X hours/days I'll take that as approval and make the edit" and so don't wish to invoke that here to justify my responses above, I was concerned the conversation was going to go stale and would be archived. Nor am I participating at any article or in any conflict (arbitration, AE, AN/I, et al.). I'm discouraged that the only contribution from my detractors, if you will, so far has been to investigate potential topic ban violations as opposed to offering any constructive comments here. I should note my other attempt at moving on from past conflict was met with escalating attacks (by Petri Krohn) culminating in blatantly false accusations of outing.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the only dispute of this nature. There are also disputes concerning the Middle East, British Overseas Territories, etc. We could set up a Wikipedia:WikiProject to encourage greater interest by editors with no opinions about these disputes. Also, it might be helpful to tighten the types of sources required for these articles, as was done for medical articles (See WP:MEDRS. TFD ( talk) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been a high incidence recently of editors filing requests that are not framed in terms of specific remedies, and admins proposing sanctions that are not specifically supported by ArbCom remedies. I have been fighting against this trend, and would like to explain why. The crucial point is that blocks resulting from AE are not like other blocks: by ArbCom ruling they cannot be reversed except as a result of consultation with ArbCom or formation of a clear consensus at AN. This irreversibility makes it important that blocks issued here be clearly and rigorously justified in terms of the sanctions they are based on. Blocks that go beyond what the sanctions support must not be imposed as part of the AE process. Looie496 ( talk) 23:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You are:
an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;
able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;
courteous, disciplined and open-minded;
able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;
able to make up your own mind under stress.
If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!
Tony (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators
Please see the new page
Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks first, with 40230 kilobytes.
Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there an inherent difference between the words "underhandedly" and "disingenuously"?
With respect,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This case appears to have been archived prematurely. Should it be reinstated? Gatoclass ( talk) 08:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
on all of these arbitration request pages I think we should adopt some special thread naming rules. The problem is that the internal linking gets all mucked up: every request on the pages will have the same stock headers (Involved parties, clerk notes, etc), and a page might (at any given moment) have three or four different sections titled "Statement by userX"as someone responds to different issues. So when someone creates a new request, the template should add a case code (maybe a random char string) to all the stock templates (e.g. "involved parties for case E-f1d4") and editors should be encouraged to use it on all new sections. It would make it a lot easier to track and respond to changes on the page.
A similar thing could be done on actual case pages (e.g. proposed remedies sections) using usernames rather than a case code.
I'm happy to do the template modifications, but since these templates are substed I don't know where they live. anyone want to point me in the right direction? -- Ludwigs2 16:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Are people not involved in an open arb case allowed to make a comment about it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Initiated by MiszaBot II ( talk) at 06:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
would someone please wrap the thing with the div-structure, as above to prevent page widening in modern browsers? Do this elsewhere, too, as needed, 'k? Thanks; I'd just fix it myself, but for my feckin' yellow ticket-of-leave. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 January 2011 (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.
I wonder, has the ArbCom changed its position on publishing extracts of emails from the EEML archive on-wiki? It would be very useful to do this. Most of the serving arbs have never read through this archive (and according to Shell don't have access) though they are still expected to rule on the case. I suggest that the benefits of free quotation (user discretion trusted on personal details) out way the loses in privacy (very easy to find off wiki anyway). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So, is anyone going to put this case out of its misery? 94.116.127.55 ( talk) 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm finding it rather difficult to research past cases. I assumed there would be an 'Archives' page of all past requests for clarifications, amendments, motions etc. but it took about 15 minutes of confused clicking around until I finally learned that "Motions and clarifications associated with arbitration cases are archived to the talk page of the associated case page" (found on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions). It took even longer to discover that there actually was a link in the navbar titled "Index of proceedings" instead of simply "Archives" which was what I'm used to. I'm guessing I'm not the only one having these problems. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions on how to improve the system, but I felt it important to report on how frustrating it was to find specific information about historical past cases, especially when the various talk page links that led me here are all broken from all the shuffling around of pagemoves. I strongly believe that all past archives have historical worth, and should be cohesive and easy to follow. It's a shame that we have such a fragmented system of record-keeping. -- œ ™ 12:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
A list and summary of cases themselves is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests ( WP:RFAR/C); at least that's how I always find it, though it's been moved around under the newish and newly complicated pagenaming system. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Setting aside the awful grammar, is this really an appropriate way to characterise editors who may be under ArbCom restrictions? Seems less than chivalrous to me. It's in the big pink box on the Request Enforcement page under the heading Conduct at Arbitration Enforcement. Lovetinkle ( talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please note Tom Reedy's comment a few hours ago to his request for enforcement against BenJonson:
I found the same when I tried to fill in the template on 2 March (and used the despairing edit summary "Oh how I hate templates" [66]), also about BenJonson. Actually, it's not templates so much that I hate, as this template. I'm sure it's perfectly simple for people who have become used to it, but for the rest of us it's indeed impenetrable. We have to spend a lot of time on it and we still never get it right. (Sandstein kindly reformated Tom's request; now it's very handsome. Mine was mistimed or too ugly or something... still not sure what the problem was.) I'm intellectually sure the designer, or improver, of the template meant well, but emotionally, I simply feel his/her purpose is to torment me, to make me feel a fool, and, worse, to make sure arbitration sanctions are actually not reinforced.
Can somebody please simplify the page? For instance, why does a template have to be full of other templates?? Is there somebody out there with pedagogical smarts as well as nerdsmarts? Bishonen | talk 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC).
}}
to close a link instead of ]]
, which confused the parser enough that the entire subst didn't go through.
T. Canens (
talk) 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)I also find the template difficult and a pain in da butt, and I've filed several reports in the past. Formatting them properly (nm tracking down the diffs and writing the text) can be very time consuming. One recurrent problem is, as I recall that if you put a space, " ", in the wrong place after the "=" sign, or thread your paragraphs in a particular way, the whole thing becomes misformatted and then you have to spend oodles of time looking for that one particular space, " ", that is messing everything up.
Having said all that, I'm actually not against the template. The way I see it, there is way too many frivolous, battleground motivated AE requests already, and having a complicated template, by imposing a cost on the filer, cuts down (though not enough) on the number of these. It's simple economics - costs up, quantity demanded for frivolous sanctions goes down, the block/ban market works more efficiently (yes, there may be side effects in that some legit requests don't get filed, but that's true of any medication that packs a punch). In fact, I would encourage Sandstein & Co. to put some extra effort and work into the template and make it even more complicated. I'm not familiar enough with wikimarkup to offer any concrete suggestions, but it sounds like T. Canens has the skills. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! But the current code:
does not seem to work as expected; the text entered into the editbox does not appear in the preloaded content. Does it need to be passed as a parameter or something? Sandstein 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think it relevant enough, or rather my place, to request some clarification on the "Single Account" terminology. (This question is brought about by the "Jack Merridew" issues. I long ago read through all the WP:SOCK, and WP:Alt Account stuff and other various policies and guidelines; but, I don't recall that IP (that is, not logged in) was considered "an account". I've noticed lately that there seems to be some confusion to that end, at least from my perspective. So, my question is: If a user who has an account edits without being logged in, is that considered to be editing from a second account? Is that explicitly stated somewhere? Perhaps AC would consider mentioning this when they address the current clarification request before them. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Ched : ? 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this. user:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator , and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am.
If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination.
IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions.
May I please write this article? Thanks -- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Re-organisation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, because this page seems (per #Article permission request) to receive very little attention. AGK [ • 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Where does the existence of this notice in the "Results" section at WP:AE come from: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.? As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong about this, there's nothing in the original ArbCom ruling which says that such a section must exist, or that it is somehow necessary to forcibly exclude non-admin editors, many of whom are more familiar with a particular topic area than the AE-admin-regulars, from the general discussion.
Admins ARE the only people who can enact bans/blocks and discretionary sanctions, but there is nothing here which says that non-admins cannot participate in the discussion of the proposed results. We are still a community of Wikipedia editors, even if some of us are admins and others aren't.
I could just as well make a notice which says that This section is to be edited only by right handed editors. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. and remove statements made by anyone I suspect of being a southpaw.
Why is that there? Honest question. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Statements posted on requests for arbitration are supposed to be a maximum of 500 words long, with a certain non-specified extra allowance per the judgment of the clerks, where needed. However... FT2's statement in the Mindbunny request is 2,000 words. Is this ridiculous length a special dispensation for former arbs? Or is it a tacit acknowledgement that FT2 is unable to restrain himself, length-wise, and must therefore be indulged? Or have the clerks decided to drive us all mad? Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 17:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
There is a problem here. Long statements are generally not helpful, particularly if there are lots of cases for arbs to read, and particularly if a case has lots of long rants that amount to peanut throwing from the gallery. OTOH, we have fewer cases there days, and often the request statements and responses to such by parties and arbs are the means by which the dispute itself is resolved. If is effectively the parties having a last ditch attempt to discuss matters with the eyes of the community and the committee on them - the result of which is often that the case is solved, or another solution emerges which saves the committee the far greater timesink of an actual case. Thus a strictly enforced word limit, even if set higher, may be problematic. I suppose you could limit contributions from non-parties (but often these are more perceptive and objective than partisan screeds). Alternatively, you need to have clerks judge the merits of contributions over a certain length, which has its own problem. The solution, I suspect, is simply to warn people that longer contributions are less likely to be carefully read. The maxim tl;dr often applies. Although long posts by certain people are usually worth reading.-- Scott Mac 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The clerks should be instructed to simply remove text from the 501th word onwards, with a note to that effect, plus a message on the person's talk page inviting them to reword their post so it's compliant. Again, the clerks wouldn't have to do it much after people realised the Committee's rules mean what they say. The Committee needs to encourage succinctness in editor's posts to it: I say this as much for the benefit of the process as for that of the arbitrators and clerks themselves, who should be given the opportunity to make their decisions on the basis of tightly reasoned arguments. It's not a soap-box for editors. Tony (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The rules say very clearly (bolded): "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail."
But it seems that the clerks are just ignoring this. Quite a few entries are in the 800–1100 range. Which other bolded rules about ArbCom procedure will the clerks ignore? Tony (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I ask that the clerk recuse and be replaced by one who is overtly uninvolved in the matter and prepared to act with neutrality. Tony (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a re-occurring problem but, as AGK says, the hard part is deciding on what should be the maximum, and when clerks should intervene, especially when people new to arbitration are involved. Arbitrators generally dont care too much about this because waffly comments that are not addressed quickly end up being read by the entire committee anyway, and we dont enjoy watching someone refine their statement because then we need to read each revision as well. Perhaps we could start to make inroads by having a {{sidebox}}
(similar to the one beside this comment) added to all statements, evidence, etc. which are over length.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to ask that the procedure "Submission of evidence" is changed by adding the following short sentence:
The issue is that a user who writes a statement of <500 words may then feel obligated to respond to others' questions. They then have to modify the original statement so that original statement and all responses fit into 500 words. Often this can't be done.
For example, in the current "Political activism" case, Coren posted an original statement of 373 words. But his current statement comprises 1110 words, including two replies of 130 and 99 words respectively.
This is far from atypical. It is clear that users are staying within the limits for the original statements. But if any of these (by way of example) had to later also fit their original point and also replies to all other users within the same 500 words, they struggle.
Could the Committee consider making it clear that replies are outside the original 500 words and providing a limit or a target average words per reply (some shorter, some longer), or simply noting that responses are not formally word limited, because it's clear many users have difficulty on fitting replies into that word count. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
At a participating editor's invitation, I sent them an example of how easy it is to reduce statement text and in doing so to make it more effective. The revised version of just their final paragraph came down from 200 to 110 words without loss of substantive meaning, and was greeted very positively by the editor. It's not rocket-science: anyone here can do it. But it won't happen until the clerks apply the existing rules. No one takes the slightest notice of the rules at the moment, yet I believe it's a matter of both social practicality and consideration for the arbs. Tony (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we have:
A 1000 word limit for people listed as parties
Keep the 500 word limit for everyone else, and this word limit includes any follow up thoughts by non-parties.
Replies to arbitrators do not count, provided they are an actual response. (this is part of
user:Neutron's proposal above)
No word limit is imposed on arbitrators comments within the arbitrator section.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that it's a faux pas, but I added "I agree", or words to that effect, to three comments. If it's taboo, please slap me with a fish on my talk page. Thanks. Bearian ( talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I am posting an updated version of my unanswered question from two weeks ago, as it seems to have been swept aside in the aftermath of the latest big wikidramu, which took over those pages shortly after I posted it, and was later weirdly archived here.
Regarding WP:DIGWUREN ( Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be:
If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:48, 2 July 2011 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
(This is the analysis I mentioned in my comment in the arbitrator voting section on the "Giano II wheel war" case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC))
The question of whether it is improper and a "wheel war" for an administrator to reverse another's action, or whether the wheel-warring only starts if the first action is then reinstated, has been debated inconclusively for some time now, including in prior cases of this Committee. Rather than try to analyze this by reviewing the policy pages or prior ArbCom decisions, as might be appropriate if the committee takes up a case presenting this issue, I think we ought to focus on what the policy should be.
In particular, the protocol for unblock reviews is actually a little confused now. We make a promise that blocked users can have an independent review of their block by another administrator, and blocking/unblocking may be the most important admin action there is vis-a-vis the contributors, so it's important that our policy in this area be well-understood and make sense.
Situation: Administrator A blocks. Administrator B reviews the block and decides an unblock is warranted.
There are at least four possibilities about what our policy should be about how this gets handled.
I've seen all four of these methodologies and standards relied on and defended on-wiki, and I don't know if there's any consensus as to which is "the rule." Consulting with the blocking admin is certainly best practice, time permitting, but is it absolutely mandatory?
Related questions:
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The role of discussion should be considered, too. Once someone is blocked, getting consensus to unblock is often difficult. However, blocking any established user is likely to be controversial, and getting consensus to block an established editor in the first place would be difficult in many instances. I think a system that favours the last admin action will tend to produce some admins who "shoot first and ask questions later"; it's easier to get forgiveness than get permission. Therefore, my view of how blocking *should* work is probably a variation of Birgitte's. I almost want to say that any block done without prior discussion and consensus at ANI should be reversible without prior discussion, but of course the reviewing admin really should ask the blocking admin if there are any hidden factors involved. So, at the very least, if a controversial block is undone, I don't think it should be reinstated without discussion and clear consensus - and that means somewhat more than just the consent of the unblocking admin. We should favor not the last admin action, but the unblocked situation. Bad blocks of established users are damaging to the encyclopedia, not just in the short-term loss, but in the potential for losing an editor forever. Gimmetrow 18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not have time to discuss this at length, because I am traveling, but I have time to post a very short note reiterating opinions I have stated before. The practice that allows any admin to lift a block without consensus to do so has the effect of permitting these admins to (knowingly or unknowingly) enable the very behavior that led to the block. I disagree with the argument that this causes no damage.
In the case of a truly bad block, there will be consensus to lift it; if the length is excessive there will be consensus to shorten it. Hasty unblocks prevent the discussion from developing any consensus or coming to a conclusion. If there is disagreement about whether a block was valid, with sound arguments on each side and no consensus, we should defer to the judgment of the admin who made the block. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
B can go ahead as the reviewing administrator and unblock. Anything else discourages admins from self policeing. Geni 01:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The wheel warring case (currently titled "Giano II wheel war") should be renamed to not include Giano's name if ultimately accepted. There's no need to throw Giano's name around if he has left the project. He should be able to leave in peace. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I hereby apply for permission to take part in the guidelines discussion per [1]. MeteorMaker ( talk) 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any point in setting a target date if it constantly slips? Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi AC, I was wondering (and feel free to close this if it's too much to ask) if there was any way that you could, as a condition for unbanning (formerly?) disruptive editors. . .keep them from participating in community discussion(s) concerning currently disruptive editors. You know 'birds of a feather' and all that. I don't know that they make that big of an impact, but still. Thanks, R. Baley ( talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As Alastair Haines seems to have a continuing habit of ignoring his RfA sanctions (See his 1st and 2nd arbitration enforcement requests as well as his block log), it would be quite useful to actually have access to his RfA (without having to dig it out of the history every time). I understand that it is often a courtesy to blank RfAs for editors who use their real names. However, I don't think we should be paying a courtesy to someone who isn't interested in respecting their RfA, and indeed is probably benefiting from its inaccessibility. Thus, I would like to request that his RfA be unblanked, so that it is easier to access and cite when necessary. Kaldari ( talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sixteen days ago, this application was filed. Since the Arbcom imposed a 14-day time limit on itself in this decision, I wonder if there has been any progress made? MeteorMaker ( talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"There wasn't a single rationale but it might be helpful at this point to explain that the motion was drafted in general terms. How the committee reacts to individual applications – accompanied perhaps by a summary of what the editor intends to say, along with assurances of good conduct and promises to avoid inflammatory rhetoric – is an entirely different matter."
OK, I apply again then, this time with an explicit assurance of good conduct and a promise to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. A summary of what I intend to say: In the event of a resurgence of the no-sources-needed let's-override-bothersome-policies-with-consensus tendencies that have plagued us in the past, I intend to insist on compliance with WP policies and guidelines and on backing up claims with sources. Otherwise I intend to remain basically silent, because I'm still in the process of catching up on my regular job after the hundreds of hours I put into the ArbCom J&S case. MeteorMaker ( talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertent? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.
(If this has been addressed elsewhere or doesn't need a clarification, please just fix any instructions which need to show it, and remove this request.)
FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I was meaning to ask why we don't just toss up a nice pretty and small "global" header template (the sort that goes dead center, up top) on each of these main RFAR pages so that people just know where to go for what? rootology ( C)( T) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been enforcing elements of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann over the last day, and it strikes me that it either needs more teeth, or Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs a level of protection or editing sanctions that are not currently applied to it. The basic problem here appears that there are two camps of editors who disagree about what the actual subject of Ancient Egyptian race controversy should be about. Now, since I have taken only administrative action on this article, I am not going to weigh in on what the correct subject of the page is (even though I do, indeed, have an opinion). The reason for this is that the above referenced ArbCom case only really provided the ability to act against disruptive editing. What is also needed, however, is a statement on the actual subject of the article. In other words " Ancient Egyptian race controversy IS about XYZ, and any editors who seek to change the article so that it is about ABC are engaging in disruptive editing". Without this key piece, the article is just going to jerk back and forth ad infinitum.
Currently relevant discussions can presently be found:
It looks like this goes back years, and since the protection is currently in place for only one month, it would seem reasonable to have a process for resolving the issue which does not include constantly locking down the page and blocking people. Hiberniantears ( talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman included me as a party in his request. I do not want to be a party of this. Can you please remove me from the list? Do you have any rules that define who must be a party? I was not a subject of any editing restrictions or sanctions in Diguwren case. Biophys ( talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
... is a problem in the recent Eastern Europe cases. Does anybody object to adopting the rule against threaded discussion as in WP:RFAR on this board? I.e., one statement per user, and any threaded dicussion belongs on the talk page. Sandstein 20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Sandstein's suggestion is that its likely outcome would add a new layer of political gaming to AE. It would create a tactical motivation for editors to collude offsite (probably more so than already happens) in order to make an effective 'first strike' against a given target, who could only rebut on the talk page where posts are less likely to be read. Conscientious admins would have to toggle between AE and AE talk to get a fair view of the actual situation, while less careful admins would likely get taken in some of the time by misleading claims and cherry picked evidence. Everyone agrees the current situation is bad, but this proposal would be likely to make it worse. Durova Charge! 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
If we agree to change the format, do we need to set up Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as a talkpage of its own, rather than having it redirect here? Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case currently redirects here as well, but AE might have a higher talk volume. Sandstein 09:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A problem is that discretionary sanctions may work in small disputes, but when a dispute reaches critical mass the noticeboard format breaks down. The most viable solution might be to designate certain large-scale cases to a new format modeled after the evidence sections of an actual arbitration case. Crud would still accumulate, but it would be sequestered and easier to separate wheat from chaff.
In the larger picture--this is as good a place to say it as any--earlier this year when I complained about "milquetoast" decisions and "passing the buck", I took it for granted that baseline Wikipedian norms would remain in effect with Committee deliberations: substantial evidence of recent policy violation should always be requisite for sanctions. Between pacifism and the nuclear option there must be a happy medium where remedies apply to primary antagonists based upon sound evidence. As Shell Kinney affirms above, there is no substitute for elbow grease. Durova Charge! 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Which page has the edit notice for WP:AE containing the template for filing requests? I'd like to edit the request template. Jehochman Talk 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to unilaterally criticize each other? I am troubled by ongoing accusations of bad faith, trolling, and stalking [10] [11] [12] [13] made against me by an editor with whom I am not to interact. To keep my equanimity, and avoid running afoul myself of the editing restrictions, I will not follow suit, respond to the accusations, take this issue to forums other than Arbcom, or otherwise interact with the editor (hence my not mentioning them by name or notifying them). However, these personal attacks are troubling and I wish they would stop. They follow many similar accusations made both before and during the arbitration, and were themselves a subject of the arbitration. If the aim of the no-interaction remedy is to stop this, and restore a healthy editing environment, surely that remedy means to stop repeating the accusations, right? Wikidemon ( talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The editor seems to be intentionally mistyping my user name (changing the numbers).
I don't know if it is intended to be annoying, rude, provocative, cute... But it should stop. Jd2718 ( talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The observation that editors desysopped by arbcom have trouble being resysopped through RFA is valid, but so what? The community's reluctance to have them back as admins is perfectly legitimate and arbcom shouldn't second-guess it. John VDB's suggestion of probationary re-sysopping during which EK is advised to do some consensus evaluations (I think this mostly means afd) prior to reconfirmation sounds unbeneficial.. EK could instead simply enter a voluntary mentorship with some admin without being resysopped. Under the mentorship, EK would do some non-admin AFD closures for a while, with the understanding that EK could close afd's as "delete" and the mentoring admin would perform the actual deletion (without necessarily endorsing it--the closures would be reviewable at DRV like any other afd closures). After doing this for a while, EK could start another RFA and invite participants to check out his recent afd closures. No temporary or probationary resysopping is required. 67.122.209.126 ( talk) 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please put the box that showed the status of all open arb cases at the upper right corner back? Removing it has made following Arbcom cases significantly more annoying. Jtrainor ( talk) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Do I need to add other parties to the new request I have opened today re use of disputed/occupied territories etc.? I've not named anyone and what to focus on how to resolve this matter rather than on individuals. An option could be to name every contributor to the 19 threads I have identified this year, but that seems excessive. Also I have noticed several editors since topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine area among the previous contributors. On the other hand picking out individuals (the admin who closed the RfC? the editor who questioned his appropriateness as an impartial judge? etc) might seem invidious. I'm tempted just to flag this matter at the IPCOLL and the Wikiprojetcs for Israel, Palestine and Syria. Any views?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Through the first half of 2009, the Arbitration Committee considered 111 requests, voted on 41 motions, publicly heard 19 cases, and drafted and voted on 928 case proposals.
There were 59 case requests, open on average for five days, with 63% declined, 29% accepted, 7% disposed by motion and one withdrawn. There were 52 clarifications and other requests, open on average for 11 days. Motions were open on average for four days, with 61% passing. Cases were open on average for 60 days, with the longest being open for nearly five and a half months.
With respect to case requests, Wizardman had the highest voting percentage of 93, followed closely by Casliber with 89, against an average of 61, and a low of zero. Coren and Stephen Bain shared the highest accept percentage of 53, and Vassyana had the highest decline percentage of 80. With respect to clarifications and other requests, Vassyana commented on the most (32). Overall, Carcharoth could be considered to have been the most active, with the lowest DNA (did not act) percentage of 18, against an average of 47 and a high of 86. With respect to motions, John Vandenberg had the highest voting percentage of 79, with many arbs following closely behind, against an average of 59 and a low of 18.
Wizardman drafted over a quarter of the cases (five) with Newyorkbrad drafting three, while John Vandenberg drafted the largest case, as measured by number of proposals (186, 100 passing), and Rlevse drafted the second largest (132, 98 passing). Six arbs were virtually tied for the highest case proposal voting percentage: Carcharoth and Sam Blacketer, (with 94) and FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, and Wizardman (with 93). Arguably, Rlevse was on average the quickest to act on case proposals, with Casliber second.
Comparing Apr-Jun with Jan-Mar, the number of case requests declined 36% and the percentage of cases accepted declined 15%, thus the number of cases accepted was almost halved. The number of clarifications and other requests increased 74%, the number of cases closed more than doubled, and the number of case proposals considered increased by more than five times.
Comparing the first half of 2009, with the first half of 2008, the number of case requests dropped dramatically from 105 to 59, continuing an apparent trend, and the number cases heard dropped from 27 to 19, while the average case duration nearly doubled from 32 days to 60.
For complete details see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009.
Paul August ☎ 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the recent changes, there is no link to the case archive on this page, or, at least, none immediately visible. There used to be a link at the bottom of the open and recently closed cases to the full list.
Since my comments were moved ( first time, second time) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I would respectfully suggest that in the future admins refrain from opening arbitration enforcement requests based on editor lobbying—and instead suggest the editor do so themselves so that editor's role in such actions is not, however unintentionally, obscured, nor their position appear to be given more credence a priori. If an admin independently observes untoward behavior, they would obviously not be prevented in any way from requesting appropriate action. PētersV TALK 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How do I get arbcom to review this banning [18]? An admin has stepped in and unilaterally banned everyone on one side of an editing dispute. This seems problematic. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on an answer to whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The admin has refused to provide diffs and says the bans are based on a pattern of behavior. How can this determination, which I totally disagree with, be reviewed? The editors who were banned don't even agree on the basic content issues, they simply agree that an admin rolling in and reverting months of their collaborative work and then having other admins ban them is improper. Surely this isn't how we do things here??? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 08:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
With Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#William_M._Connolley_(2nd), after the process began but before formal acceptance, it became clear to me that certain editors were continuing to be highly involved in the primary matter (WMC's actions around cold fusion and me and my ban), so I added them as parties. One had already added himself. Mathsci edit warred to keep his name and the proof of notice out. On the one hand, those names were not there when arbitrator voting began; on the other, I was not aware that one could refuse to be a subject of arbitration, and I know of an editor who was added, at one point, while he vigorously objected. Names can also be added during the process, but I'm not clear on procedure. I added the names, not to widen the arbitration into a cold fusion arbitration, though I think all of the editors have edited cold fusion, but solely in connection with the behavioral disruptions and the ban. -- Abd ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
[19] William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
WMC's edit summary: (rv yet another addition by Abd. You've been told to stop doing this.) No, WMC, the community was told that any further edit warring would result in a block. You just edit warred. I did not. I added a new party, which I'm allowed to do, it's part of the filing and no uninvolved editor has told me I can't do it. There has been no consensus that the names added were edit warring, they are original content, relevant to the case, and the removal by Mathsci was considered edit warring, as must, now, be yours. Fascinating. -- Abd ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If Adb or WMC continue this silly edit war, I'll block them myself. This is totally silly and lame. And one of you is an admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Why everything touched by Abd becomes such a complicated mess?.... -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Post removed per bainer. Mathsci ( talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am ok accepting Jimbo's explanation that "toxic personalities" wasn't referring to Bishonen. The reference evoked an image of Wikipedia as one of those uppity boarding schools with a high academic reputation and student discipline supposedly enforced by prefects, where unfortunately the school is overrun with idiots who run around naked shouting "wooga! wooga!" while snapping towels at people and generally driving everyone nuts. For some reason the prefects do nothing about this until one of the better prefects, Bishonen, can't stand it any more and lets loose some profanities at one of the idiots. At that point the head prefect, Jimbo, regretfully sends Bishonen to 3 hours of detention even though the profanities were well-justified--prefects are supposed to follow higher standards than that. The bigger question is, why are the prefects letting the idiots run rampant to the point where they could cause Bishonen to lose her cool? Those idiots are the toxic personalities Jimbo referred to. Future Perfect At Sunrise (iirc) at one point said something to the effect that only a fork of enwiki accompanied by mass bannings could fix this place. The mainspace editing environment has really gotten damn near intolerable. detox.wikipedia.org anyone?
Meanwhile, Bishonen might find it relaxing to take a break for a while, if this is really bugging her so much. If she can't find enough AGF to believe the explanation applied from the beginning, maybe she can treat it as a retcon and go along with it anyway. Mediation with Jimbo might or might not help. Yeah, the block in retrospect was probably an error on Jimbo's part, but not all that egregious a one, and not a frequent one either. And while I hate Jimbo's guts (and I mean that in a nice way), he is certainly supplying better leadership than the towel snapping idiots ever will, so I'd prefer that he continue to exert it even though I disagree with him on some pretty fundamental things. Anyway, holding an arb case over the block would be ridiculous. There are plenty of both random toxic cretins and really evil assholes trying to corrupt wikipedia who need the venom a lot more. It's senseless to burn one's energies battling something that was done with good intentions where the other person is trying to make nice, even if it was something dumb. 67.117.147.249 ( talk) 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. Comments and feedback are invited on the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth ( talk) 04:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
SV wrote: "He also wanted to use a different account when editing from work for privacy reasons, so he would use Geogre at home, and Utgard at work."
I'm interested in knowing exactly how this practice was supposed to protect Geogre's privacy. Can SV or Geogre explain? 67.117.147.249 ( talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it "Post Crazy-ass Requests for Arbitration Week" or something? My calendar only has lunar phases and major holidays, but I surely don't want to miss out on the week's festivities if so! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems like nothing has happened on the Obama articles amendment for a while. The last edit to the case was 5 days ago. Do these things go stale, or is there always some form of resolution (even if it is a resolution to not amend anything)? Is the Arbitration Committee looking for additional statements/comments? Just wondering. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally I keep pretty close tabs on case requests I file. This is an exception, partly because it's likely to attract greater than the usual share of trash talk that's better left ignored and partly because other obligations (related in substantial part to a recent Signpost open letter) really are taking up a lot of time. Other than FPC I'm not checking much ATM; looking at RFAR about once a day. If something urgent arises please ping me at user talk. Durova 284 03:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Section 1.4 of the motion says "Although the use of this latter phrase was later clarified as intending to refer to incivility in general, the phrasing was careless and has been interpreted, reasonably, by some editors as referring to Bishonen" citing this diff as the clarification. The diff doesn't say anything about incivility. It refers to toxic behavior in a more general way. Toxic behavior of all kinds pervades Wikipedia, and only a little bit of it has anything to do with incivility. I personally prefer to interpret the diff as referring to a wider range of toxicity that Wikipedia admins should stop tolerating. Occasional inappropriate cussing between editors can be annoying, but it is pretty far down the list of things I'd want more people blocked for if it were up to me. In any case, I request the arb motion to be fixed to reflect what the diff actually says, not what someone seems to have projected onto it. 67.117.147.249 ( talk) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, a thread at WP:ANI was auto-archived before being formally closed, but after a possible consensus for sanction. It's been suggested the matter be brought here. Would that be appropriate? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345. Thanks. Rd232 talk 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the amendment pass, with the current voting counts? It's been idle for three days now. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I am confused about the way things run here. 11 minutes after I filed my request for enforcement, it was closed by Shell Kinney [30], who as far as I can tell is neither a member of the arbcom nor a clerk. Shell's comment also seems to betray a misunderstanding of the issue I was raising. In case it was unclear, the provision to which I refer in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed is It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement. I think that Shell is mistaken in asserting that this particular section "specifically refers to actions of LaRouche supporters," which I should think would be unnecessary. because they don't seem to be inclined to demonize their leader. I think it is directed more at the other side, which has been a bit over-enthusiastic in using Wikipedia to "expose" LaRouche. So, how do I go about getting a second hearing on this motion? -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement, which means the enforcement of the remedies that the Arbitration Committee has issued in a case that has already closed, can be performed by any administrator (although it is most often done by experienced administrator who has taken a knowledgeable interest in this area—and often there are too few administrators working this function, which leads to excessive workload and burnout for those to take it on, so additional help is always appreciated). Indeed, traditionally, the enforcement function is not taken on by the arbitrators itself, both for workload reasons, and to preserve their impartiality if the dispute later returns to the committee. (I can, however, readily understand the confusion created by the fact that in the full arbitration page layout, the enforcement noticeboard, which used to be a separate page, is now included with the other sections on which the decision-making is by the arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure who exactly is doing it, but I have been noticing systematic changes to how the Arb page is being displayed and layed out.
I, for one, would like to applaud the efforts of the volunteers improving the transparency and accessability of Arbcom and its related pages. Creating the links to other pages in a case (such as being able to jump between evidence and workshop without going back to the main page) was just the latest one that made me yell 'thank you' in my mind.
You guys take a lot of flak from a lot of angry people, I figure you should hear about the good things you do too. Things are improving, people are noticing.
And thank you. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
A pending arbitration request ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed_of_light) names me as 1 of 8 parties. A few other editors, who were not named, are active participants in the disputes that are the subject of the arbitration request. What is the procedure for adding parties to an arbitration request? Thank you. — Finell (Talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Implementation_notes
could the clerks consider a system which is a little more descriptive, listing the names of each section?
The current numbers require a person to look at the number, then scroll up to the section, and go back and forth.
For a rough example, maybe something like the bottom of the collapsed template, compare it to the current system at the top of this collapsed template. Ikip ( talk) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration decision
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 4 recused), so 6 votes are a majority. Abstain votes, are neutral, they do not subtract or add to support votes. The abstains mean the same as a recuse for that one proposal, and lower the majority on the proposal. (For example, if the total active is 11 and 3 abstain, then the new number of voting arbs is 8, and the new majority is 5.) Thank you for the clear explanation Flonight!
|
Concerning the matter Stevertigo raises, I urge those Arbcom members who have declined, to reconsider.
Since Arbcom looks unlikely to take this case, the matter is being held at DRV and (formerly) at AN/I. Discussions there are generating more heat than light, and though the DRV looks likely to overturn the speedy deletion (thereby satisfying Stevertigo, at least to some extent), I think what we have here is, at heart, a conduct issue at least as much as it is a content one. DRV is much better suited to deal with content than conduct.
What Arbcom, DRV and AN/I have in common is that each one is, arguably, the "highest court in the land" in its jurisdiction. From our current procedures, DRV is the one place from which a content decision cannot be taken elsewhere, while AN/I deals with immediate issues of conduct.
I believe our previous experience with the involved users and the high-profile nature of the content shows that this matter will stay with the "highest court in the land" that will accept the case in perpetuity. Neither side is willing to give up, and both sides have points that have merit, which they are willing to repeat ad infinitum. In other words, in its current venues, the matter will not achieve closure.
I feel that closure is highly to be desired and that Arbcom is the only venue that can achieve it.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Powergate92 ( talk · contribs), who was not a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong, has suddenly begun acting as Mythdon had done prior to the case, leading to several motions later on that affected his ability to edit Wikipedia. In short, he has pointed out a mistakenly labeled rollback. I'm aware that there have never been any sort of sanctions against him, but in the last few months he acted in concert with Mythdon in a few discussions that took place prior to the initial topic ban against Mythdon.
Should he be any more allowed to make the same comments that an acquaintance of his was prevented from doing?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear arbcom, things on the ADHD talk page have been escalating, personal attacks, baiting editors, games etc. I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep my cool but I am trying. Scuro was meant to be appointed a mentor within a month of the arbcom but this has not happened. Is there a reasonn for this?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
One of the enforcement provisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking was that after three months passed from the case's closure, the Committee would review the manual of style for stability ( remedy). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The project page header overprints itself in Safari. In Firefox at least it doesn't overprint, but it still looks weird. I've debugged the problem but the page is protected. Please replace the {{ArbCom notice banner}} in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header with the following:
{| style="text-align: left; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1em; margin:auto; font-size: 10pt;" | Please make your request in the appropriate section: * '''[[#Requests for arbitration|Request a new arbitration case]]''' * '''[[#Requests for clarification|Request clarification of an existing case]]''' * '''[[#Requests for amendment|Request an amendment to an existing case]]''' *: <small>This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed</small> * '''[[#Requests for enforcement|Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case]]''' * '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions|Arbitrator motions]]''' *: <small>Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case</small> |}
The new box displays as:
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
The result is much more clear, the box repositions nicely as the browser window width is adjusted, and it looks the same in both Safari and Firefox. I could also do without the ArbComOpenTasks to the right of the TOC (above would be nicer), but a little scrolling won't kill me when I'm not in full screen mode. UncleDouggie ( talk) 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This keeps coming up: that Law's otherwise inexplicable unblock of CoM is explicable once you know about interactions between The undertow and CoM. But for those of us not familiar with the prehistory, someone please say what those interactions were. William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The real question is why Tarc wasn't blocked or banned after all his incivility, after repeatedly trying to censor by deletion numerous articles he disagreed with, and why he was allowed to edit war and violate 3RR in 24 hours with only a short block that an admin helped edit war to prevent it being recorded in the log? But I got some massive punishement for 4 edits over two days with talk page discussion inbetween. It is strange isn't it. Has Tarc ever written an article? I do new page patrol a lot, and I haven't seen any. But he must have some value because if all he did was cause disruption I'm sure one of our illustrious admisn would step in to stop him. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably needs to be addressed. Is he not banned yet? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I see from his talk page that Connolley was in private communication with the Eastern European mailing list members. Will we have full disclosure of his involvement in this conspiracy on Wiki? Did it play a role in his desysop or was that based on other inappropriate behavior? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
|
This page is for discussion regarding the arbitration requests page. Is there an open request you'd like to post a meta-comment on? A comment about the page structure or operation? Other types of comments have other places where they belong, and they are unlikely to get the appropriate response here. Nathan T 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we all please stop using terms like witch hunt and crucify. Please stick to technically accurate terminology. This discussion is already heated enough. Let's stick to the facts and try to work out a resolution. Nobody is getting nails pounded through hands and feet or burned alive at the stake. I've proposed something useful, I think, on the associated project page. Only one other editor has commented thus far. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Could we please do something useful. I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA. This process would serve everyone, including the "accused". They deserve a clear up or down result: either remove their bits or clear them of wrongdoing. They should not be left in limbo, under a cloud of suspicion. Jehochman Talk 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please consider trimming your statements and placing pieces here if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
To be very clear, I will not be satisfied with any sort of slap-on-the-wrist admonishments. Before any wrongdoers are forgiven, they must convincingly state that they will not repeat the wrongdoing. Thus far we have not seen such statements. Until we do, the de-admin process should continue.
Jehochman
Talk 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The number of opinions below is extremely large. Many other members of the community might like to express an opinion but they have probably refrained from making this page even longer. Upon reflection, I do not like the idea of the Committee passing a motion with general principals. Policy is created by everyone, not by the arbitrators. There are objections to opening a case, yet there is no precedent for the community to remove sysop access.
To resolve what appears to be deadlock, I request a novel discussion format: ArbCom orders and supervises an RFC in lieu of the usual evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages. A separate RFC for each respondent would be created in Arbitration-space, and be supervised by the clerks and arbitrators. After giving the entire community (7 | 14) days to provide views, the arbitrators would vote on whether each administrator retains the trust of the community. Any who do not would immediately lose sysop access.
The advantages of this approach include:
I suggest this process be put to use now, and be considered as something that can be used from time to time in the future whenever there are serious doubts about whether an administrator has lost the trust of the Community.
Submitted for your consideration, Jehochman Talk 13:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel this would be productive or helpful.
This case clearly rests in the Arbitration jurisdiction, it is their responsibility to make a ruling as to if the administrators have acted responsibly, and what sanctions if any there should be. I do not see any ability for an RFC, of any kind, to produce a reasonable and civil debate in these circumstances.
I also feel it is important that the Arbitration Committee understand that this now rests with them, and solely with them, to make the final decision. And the responsibility for that decision rests with them, and how they handle it will impact the future of the Committee.
If the Committee are not prepared to defend previous sanctions from being circumvented by covert Administrator collusion, then they whole arbitration process is irrelevant since sanctions become meaningless. -- Barberio ( talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If this is done, all notable cases of administrators aiding any kind of socking should be put up. This should not be specified to the current instance, but retroactive to other instances. Most notably, Bishonen for long term aiding a sock puppet harassment campaign against multiple users. To have this only used for one instance instead of all outstanding instances would be completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I suspect a lot of the people not commenting are doing so because they don't want to feed this silly drama. And yes, I know, I'm not helping matters by pointing that out. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea. I'm not sure it's workable but it's at least worth kicking around to see if it could be. Whether adopted here or not, I think the idea of "supervised RfC" might have some merit, independently, as a lot of RfCs tend to be rather in need of a bit of supervision/clerking. But perhaps as an optional thing, chosen by the intiators at the start? ++ Lar: t/ c 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The criteria for adminship is "having the trust of the community". Arbs should seek broad community input when evaluating whether that trust exists. Nothing controversial about that.
Wikipedia still doesn't have a way to check whether existing admins have community trust. In practice, trust isn't a requirement anymore. Admins don't necessarily "have the trust of the community". For practical reasons, we've had to employ an alternate standard: an admin is someone who "did have the trust of the community at some point in the past".
The Arbs should always consider an editor's level of trust with the community when considering admin status. Surely, each Arb already tries, privately and informally, to evaluate community trust. But in some cases, the project could benefit by explicitly gauging trust in a public, clear, and transparent way. Just one more tool in the toolbox that the arbs could use, when needed, to get the job done. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a very important distinction between ArbCom itself determining the best solution, and ArbCom evaluating the community's determination of the best solution.
The admins in question are admins as a result of the faith the community expressed for them during their RFAs. If that faith no longer exists, it's up to the entire editing community to say so -- not simply ArbCom. It would be entirely appropriate, in my view, for ArbCom to evaluate the discussion and make a determination of community consensus; but that's a very different thing than the motions currently under consideration, which have ArbCom itself evaluating whether de-sysopping the people in question is appropriate.
Therefore, I strongly support Jehochman's proposal, as the only active proposed motion that permits all members of the community to weigh in on whether or not they trust the editors in question with the tools.
- Pete ( talk) 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people would seem to appreciate an answer to this question. Please provide answers for all members of the community. Clerks: feel free to provide links to the answers to this question if they've already been provided on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I need to apologize—to Risker and the entire committee—for the rollback I made over this section. [32] It reflects poorly on the committee and I had no excuse for doing it. Cool Hand Luke 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can say yes or no, and we'll never know everyone who knew for sure. Therefore, the arbs/admins who are coming forward and admitting that they knew are being crucified. I don't think it's fair. I don't think there's much to gain by trying to find every single editor who maybe knew, because there's no way to ever find out for sure. hmwith ☮ 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Nashville meetup was planned as a BRC meetup, but everyone was free to attend and not nearly all the attendees are members of the BRC, which is not an actual cabal. A few of the planned attendees, including Chip, were not able to make it for various reasons. I like how the conspiracy theories are spiraling out, though. Like we all conspired and planned to promote Law into adminship to do our bidding. I talk to Chip on the phone like three days a week and chat with him online occasionally. I rarely knew what he was up to on-wiki. Hardly anything underhanded. You, SlimVirgin, speak of needing to be able to ask questions without being accused of something untoward. Consider that we can't answer without out intentions being assumed as the worst possible. People aren't looking for answers. Seriously, look at that RFAR. Some people are, but these calls of witch hunts and crucifixions are valid. Answers aren't what most people are looking for, because they've already decided what the "truth" is. Lara 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure none of you sat down and hatched an actual plot. But it's like the myth of the boiling lobster, that if you raise the heat of the water slowly, he doesn't feel so much pain. Bit by bit, several admins—and others with higher permissions—got sucked into watching someone lie to gain adminship, because they were part of a group of friends, and so no one stopped to think, "Hang on, should this be happening?" A mindset emerged, an example of groupthink, where people weren't thinking clearly as individuals. The point of asking questions now is to find out why that happened so easily, and whether we can put checks in place to minimize it in future. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I made a serious factual mistake in my Statement by uninvolved Finell in the above referenced arbitration request. I struck out the erroneous paragraph with an explanation. Please look at the change, as I do not want anyone to be influenced by my erroneous "evidence". I apologize for making this error. Finell (Talk) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to have become a new tactic, that in order to try to derail a case someone will make an accusation of past misconduct against the person filing the case.
This kind of mud slinging can't be allowed to continue. It confuses the issues of the cases, it makes it harder to read the case sections by filling them up with unrelated text, it makes the job harder for the Arb Com by turning up the heat.
So I think I'd advise the clerks to operate with a new rule.
Accusations of bad conduct unrelated to the case at hand should be immediately removed from case requests, workshops or other case pages. The only time they should be allowed is when the ArbCom request a past history of a particular editor's behaviour. Additionally, editors who make unfounded accusations in this way should be given a civility warning on their talk pages.
If you want to make accusations against another editor before the ArbCom, file a case against them, or stay quiet. Do not piggyback on a separate unrelated or only distantly related case, do not make unsubstantiated or vague accusations, the phrase 'coming from you considering what you did in' should never be seen on these pages. Editors, you are not pigs, do not play in the mud. -- Barberio ( talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This proposal seems to have pretty good support. Would you like to work with this rule, or do you see problems here we can't? -- Barberio ( talk) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The bifurcation of motion and case into separate sub pages fragments discussion when they are in fact quite linked together. Can something be done about this please?
In addition, I've noticed that clarification requests now languish considerably longer than they should. I understand that they are usually really low on the priority list, but the split pages makes them look outright forgotten.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Arbs should have noted that Law had resigned his adminship and requested that, in light of his good contributions, he take a short wikibreak. They should have asked the community to work out via a consensus process a set of policies on reporting block and ban evasion. The Arbs should also have offered up a streamlined block and ban review process and suggested a process for reform of our sanction and enforcement approaches.
Those involved in the RfA where disclosure wasn't adequate should have been admonished to do better and to at least avoid the appearance of impropriety and conflicts of interest. All editors should have been reminded to use discretion and keep the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Jehochman should have been admonished for fanning the flames and pushing this disruption as a score settling campaign. We all could have gotten back to editing long ago. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There was only ever going to be one way to prevent this incident turning into a cause célèbre and as only one two of the three protagonists has have taken it, here we are. There seem to be two main approaches being offered by contributors to this debate. One group, observing the relatively trivial short-term effects of the controversial actions in question call for restraint and lament the drama. Another group, concerned with the potential medium-term damage to the encyclopaedia’s reputation, request firm and decisive action.
I am in the latter group and the problem as I see it is has nothing to do with deleting pages, at random or otherwise. It is that faith in the integrity of administrators as a group is declining due to this and other controversies. It is simply not credible that we can be seen to flout community policy and then say “get over it”. If Arbitration Committee cannot, or will not stop the rot, another way will have to found, however dark and dangerous the way. We have become a large and bloated empire, and if “administrator” becomes associated in readers and editors minds with lying, cheating, cabalism and general venality, the end result is easy to imagine.
I bear no ill-will to any of those involved. Whatever their shortcomings, they too are victims of a system that is in danger of failing us all, and for which we must all take some responsibility. Ben Mac Dui 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
←I came upon this while reading background on the "Law issue" (which seems to be everywhere on Wikipedia at the moment), and I just wanted to make a point about this ACORN/Obama thing that many people seem to have forgotten. Hopefully this is not seen as a violation of my Obama-article topic ban! During the heady days of edit warring and POV pushing that went on somewhat before ArbCom tidied things up a bit, massive efforts to add Obama to the ACORN article and ACORN to the Obama article took place. This sort of activity was precisely why an ArbCom case became necessary. That Obama is barely mentioned in the ACORN article now is irrelevant. I took "broadly construed" to mean any article that either mentioned Obama, or was tentatively related to Obama in some way - and ArbCom evidently agreed. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, non-registered editors should be barred (or at least restricted) from articles related to the Troubles in Ireland. GoodDay ( talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
A new Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2. This RFC focuses on the composition and selection of the committee; specifically, how many members should be on the Arbitration Committee, how long should their terms be, and how should they be selected? The issue of a Public vs Secret ballot is also under discussion, as is the issue of Support/Oppose voting vs Preferential or Cumulative Selection. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana's second statement is factually wrong in several ways:
Vassyana, I've engaged in more heated discussions than this RFAR in the past, and other editors and I have been able to re-examine our initial positions and sometimes change our minds. (I changed my mind in the AfD.) Please show the same willingness to re-examine your position. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not the remedies for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles should be modified, to additionally authorize discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at: Wikipedia:ANI#Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles. -- El on ka 17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm on the very periphery of this dispute, but part of the problem as I see it is that there is confusion and disagreement over what articles are related to The Troubles. For example in the recent spat over motorway article names, in which I was involved, there was actions taken and statements made that were characterised as Irish or British nationalist by some parties and not by others. While it is my (non-neutral) opinion that at least one of the editors involved has some Irish nationalist opinions that she allowed to get in the way of objectivity, I would not class this dispute as being "Troubles related" - even if some of the editors involved are also involved in disputes on articles are undoubtedly related (I am not involved in those articles, but was involved in the motorway naming dispute, for example). Similarly I noticed editors involved with the British National Party article comment that although it is about British nationalism, they did not regard it as "Troubles related" and (like me) were largely unaware of the troubles-related articles disputes, and did not therefore feel it was appropriate for that article to be subject to the same restrictions.
What I think therefore would be very useful would be for a clear statement from the arbcom on what sort of articles are involved and which aren't, otherwise I forsee the potential for any article dealing with anything to do with the British Isles (in the broadest sense), Great Britain or Ireland to be drawn into the conflict, and a clear way of getting independent opinions in the case of disagreement over whether something is "troubles-related" or not. Perhaps remedies, etc would be better stated in terms of involved users as well as or instead of article-based. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
RE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Jack_Merridew MBisanz wrote:
WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed instructs that a notice shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles, which was apparently done by adding a very large box to {{ WikiProject Scientology}}. [36] After a complaint at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, the message was adjusted to hide inside banner shells. [37] [38] It was brought up earlier today that this causes the banner to no longer be visible on these pages, in violation of the ArbCom instruction.
As a compromise between the need for giving notice of the ArbCom decision and the desire to not overload the banner shell, I have made an edit to display the warning in a "collapsed" format when inside banner shells. An example may be seen at Talk:Karen Black.
Is this acceptable? Anomie ⚔ 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Durova has clearly breached the 500 word limit. Could a clerk please refactor the picture - I don't mind whether you cut off the top half, or the left side. Privatemusings ( talk) 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm really sorry for the disruption, but I just suppressed some text from the current request. An editor posted some private email they were sent, then immediately requested redaction. I've notified the rest of the oversight team on this matter. Nobody else's comments were modified in any way, so if you posted something, it's not been touched in any way. Sorry about the mess - Alison ❤ 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
May I ask how this suppression feature works? When you suppress the bad edit and subsequent revisions, content of the subsequent revisions remains, but it is impossible to link to their diffs. Is that so? When I look in the page history a bunch of diffs are struck through and grayed out, and I can't link to them. That sort of sucks for obvious reasons. Is there any way to improve this suppression feature? If not, maybe we should rename it "oppression". Jehochman Talk 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that per this rationale I will have to set my lawyers in Bratislava and San Franciso loose on DuncanHill. Hans Adler 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see more arbcom members chime in at the enforcement sections like they used to. Right now, a topic banned editor who is a self proclaimed single purpose account ( updating his userpage to look less ominous) has been permitted to resume editing (albeit on a 30 day trial) in the topic he was banned from and this was done after only one day of discussion and with only a few people chiming in. We should see more involvement from arbcom in this area.-- MONGO 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Three arbitrators have recused from a proposed case with perhaps a fourth recusal in the offing. If the trend continues there may be a shortage of arbitrators to actually weigh the case. This dilemma was predictable and likely to recur unless changes are implemented. Fortunately it is also preventable.
A solution
Convert the Audit Subcommittee into a fully independent Audit Committee. While you're at it, convert the Ban Appeals Subcommittee into a fully independent Appeals Board.
Too many people wearing too few hats is a recipe for trouble; balance of powers is a good thing. Durova 386 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth, your comments raise one big question for me... once you saw that suppression had occurred, and having already explained the meaning of Randy to the oversight list, why did you not act to reverse the suppression? You knew there was positively no outing, you knew the suppression was wrong and would inevitably be reversed, and you certainly should have expected that the longer it took for the reversal to occur the bigger the controversy would grow. Given those surrounding factors I am wondering what led you to wait for / want consensus on the oversight list as a pre-requisite for acting. EdChem ( talk) 18:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: how you can type that the AUSC report did a "good job" of anything with apparently straight fingers is prompting other questions, but I'm letting those go through to the keeper.
One part of your answer highlights a crucial issue not covered in the AUSC report, and one which concerns me profoundly. You wrote about a requirement for the person who files a request for suppression to not be privy to, and take part in, the subsequent discussion. I share some of the blame for that for not, in hindsight, asking the person who made the oversight request (and was understandably upset about what he thought had happened) to stay out of the subsequent discussion on the mailing list. The arbitrator / editor who allegedly believed the reference to Randy was an attempted outing has stated that he vented but did not request action. Now, it seems to me that Carcharoth's comments either suggest that this arbitrator is making statements that are less than forthright and complete, and that he actively lobbyed for the suppression to be kept in place, or the request and lobbying came from someone else. As the editor currently nominated for the "someone else" role is not an oversighter, this immediately raises questions about how that editor was privy to discussion on oversight-l. Were there unauthorised disclosures of oversight-l discussions?
I am going to post about this issue on the talk page of the AUSC report, as it is more suited to that location. EdChem ( talk) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The Jehochman case request was removed as not mathematically possible to accept. How does that work? I thought less than half the Arbcom had voted (accept,decline or recuse) so surely it would still be possible to accept, even without anyone changing their vote? 78.130.56.146 ( talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to make my comment in the case request too long, and some of this is better on this page than that one:
So... what "it was fine, but please don't do it again"? I know this is rushed, but this is not as helpful as it could be.
I rather expected a short term "stop it for now pending further consideration", which would handily give the community a chance to do something. (Yeah, they've had X million chances, but to jump from doing nothing for 4 years to comprehensive mass deletion without even a cursory effort to source, or even to incubate some of the likelier candidates for sourcing, is prima facie ludicrous.) A later, reasoned decision to say to what extent it was OK, maybe after clarification of policy and the like, would provide a sword of Damocles to get things moving. Rd232 talk 08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So it's effectively saying "Ignore every other policy if it involves a BLP?" Just curious. Q T C 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I read it as it was fine given the circumstances, but now hopefully circumstances changed so be careful and slow down if not necessarily stop. There's definitely some articles in there that deserve to be there and a coordinated effort to ref them is a better outcome than deletion. And then there's all the rest... radek ( talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the proper way to proceed with a somewhat of an ArbCom blessing (broadly construed, as I understand it) is to keep on with the deletions of potentially harmful unsourced BLPs but at the same time to be REALLY respectful of request for undeletions or "hangon" notices, as well as being conscious of the fact that many of these articles are in fact mis-tagged rather than un-sourced. Delete them, but if anyone jumps up and says "I'll do the work" - give them the opportunity.
Also - this has been lost in the drama - but the idea that ALL BLPs, even the referenced ones, should undergo some kind of a "proofreading process" after which they get a "This BLP article's sources have been checked by a proofreader to actually match the information found in it" template (and a negative one if they haven't - at least) needs to be discussed as well. radek ( talk) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian's statement has it in a nutshell. Rd232 talk 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had not actually considered claims that a person exists to be "contentious" nor "controversial." I suggest a reasoned cessation is in order, sans acrimony. Collect ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This motion is pretty much ideal. I'd take out the "IAR", as BLP should say everything that needs to be said. The amnesty is an excellent idea too. Well done! - David Gerard ( talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
RE: Kirill Lokshin's motion to delete 60,000 articles.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago, we were talking about our concern about Wikipedia. The editor said that trolls nominate trolls. After reading this proposed motion, which most probably will pass, I think the statement should be changed to: deletionists nominate deletionits, or to use the term of Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books, bullies nominate bullies. [40]
In August 2009 Bobbie Johnson of the Guardian wrote:
Bobbie Johnson's description was accurate. In one fell swoop 8 editors are going to give this terrible disruption their blessing, deleting 60,000 articles.
As
Kelly Martin said of the
Durova "secret mailing list": "This particular list is new, but the strategy is old...It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."
[42] I truly have to wonder if this was all planned, it seems too perfect. struck, no proof.
Ikip 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@Viridae: "Potential harm to people's lives trumps petty rules. QED. " ... Explain why this argument does not lead to the conclusion that we should close down WP to public view until every statement that has any BLP implications (in any article - BLP doesn't just apply to biography articles) has been reliably sourced. Rd232 talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) That's a slippery slope argument, and a poor one. But since you asked: it is an office action that we clean up BLPs. It is also, under common sense, an office action that we provide a free encyclopedia to the public. Ironholds ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So... what "it was fine, but please don't do it again"? I know this is rushed, but this is not as helpful as it could be.
I rather expected a short term "stop it for now pending further consideration", which would handily give the community a chance to do something. (Yeah, they've had X million chances, but to jump from doing nothing for 4 years to comprehensive mass deletion without even a cursory effort to source, or even to incubate some of the likelier candidates for sourcing, is prima facie ludicrous.) A later, reasoned decision to say to what extent it was OK, maybe after clarification of policy and the like, would provide a sword of Damocles to get things moving. Rd232 talk 08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
So it's effectively saying "Ignore every other policy if it involves a BLP?" Just curious. Q T C 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I read it as it was fine given the circumstances, but now hopefully circumstances changed so be careful and slow down if not necessarily stop. There's definitely some articles in there that deserve to be there and a coordinated effort to ref them is a better outcome than deletion. And then there's all the rest... radek ( talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the proper way to proceed with a somewhat of an ArbCom blessing (broadly construed, as I understand it) is to keep on with the deletions of potentially harmful unsourced BLPs but at the same time to be REALLY respectful of request for undeletions or "hangon" notices, as well as being conscious of the fact that many of these articles are in fact mis-tagged rather than un-sourced. Delete them, but if anyone jumps up and says "I'll do the work" - give them the opportunity.
Also - this has been lost in the drama - but the idea that ALL BLPs, even the referenced ones, should undergo some kind of a "proofreading process" after which they get a "This BLP article's sources have been checked by a proofreader to actually match the information found in it" template (and a negative one if they haven't - at least) needs to be discussed as well. radek ( talk) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian's statement has it in a nutshell. Rd232 talk 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had not actually considered claims that a person exists to be "contentious" nor "controversial." I suggest a reasoned cessation is in order, sans acrimony. Collect ( talk) 11:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This motion is pretty much ideal. I'd take out the "IAR", as BLP should say everything that needs to be said. The amnesty is an excellent idea too. Well done! - David Gerard ( talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
RE: Kirill Lokshin's motion to delete 60,000 articles.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago, we were talking about our concern about Wikipedia. The editor said that trolls nominate trolls. After reading this proposed motion, which most probably will pass, I think the statement should be changed to: deletionists nominate deletionits, or to use the term of Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books, bullies nominate bullies. [44]
In August 2009 Bobbie Johnson of the Guardian wrote:
Bobbie Johnson's description was accurate. In one fell swoop 8 editors are going to give this terrible disruption their blessing, deleting 60,000 articles.
As
Kelly Martin said of the
Durova "secret mailing list": "This particular list is new, but the strategy is old...It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."
[46] I truly have to wonder if this was all planned, it seems too perfect. struck, no proof.
Ikip 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
@Viridae: "Potential harm to people's lives trumps petty rules. QED. " ... Explain why this argument does not lead to the conclusion that we should close down WP to public view until every statement that has any BLP implications (in any article - BLP doesn't just apply to biography articles) has been reliably sourced. Rd232 talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) That's a slippery slope argument, and a poor one. But since you asked: it is an office action that we clean up BLPs. It is also, under common sense, an office action that we provide a free encyclopedia to the public. Ironholds ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom doesn't have the authority to dictate speedy deletion criteria contrary to what the community has decided. Don't be so clueless. A consensus is forming at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people about what to do. Don't preclude that. Jehochman Brrr 18:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
( ←) Further, lets do a little textual analysis shall we?
The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.
The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.
The first group of administrators is "commended" for "efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encylopedia.[sic.]" While the second group is "reminded" that "interfer[ing]" with the first group that "enforcement of the policy [...] takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." So, the second group, by exclusion, was not making "efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encylopedia.[sic.]" but in fact interfering with those who do over mere procedural concerns. The first group of admins is specifically cited as doing something "reasonable." The second group is given no consideration but is in fact grouped as people who care more about bureaucracy than living people (Cavaet lector, this is me reading in between the lines. I stand by it anyway). The Committee went out of their way to support one group, and didn't even give lip service to the concerns of the second group and further more, pigeonholes them. This motion is insulting.-- Tznkai ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved from project page ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ShellKinney's clarifications are useful. Discussion is proceeding in multiple fora, and it seems very likely we'll end up with something akin to a prod tag for unsourced BLPs that cannot be removed and which will lead to deletion if the article is not sourced. If we get that then the "speedy" BLP deletions by admins will simply not be necessary. The ArbCom statement could have been worded better such that it was clear those signing on were not saying "keep deleting those articles en masse," but the clarification makes it clear that what the Arbs want to see now is discussion that leads to a solution to the problem. If some admin or admins starts up again with the deletion as these discussions continue (and I think those discussions need to be resolved in a week at the absolute most), I would urge the Arbs to inform the admin that continuing on that course would result in a block. In spite of all the drama and very bad blood surrounding this situation, we're at a point now where we can resolve it and come up with a good solution to handle unsourced BLPs which most interested editors can sign on to. That's where all the energy needs to be right now, though I'll admit that there are larger issues here in the background. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would say that OverlordQ's statement is one of the best I've ever read. Apologetic, funny, and short. Nicely done! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I used the template to make my request. I titled it "WikiProject Ireland Collaboration". That is what my request was about. An editor, of whom I knew nothing, came along and reworded that title to say "Ireland article names". Part of my clarification request is about this naming debate drowning all else in certain areas such as collaboration. When some stranger, which is all I could see, had come along and drowned me with it at the first post, I was spitting expletives to myself. Of course I may think now that there was more to the edit than just renaming my request, making so that it woud point to a specific Arbcom case, but this was not something that I could see and a second clerk, another apparently random stranger, came along shortly after my revert and renamed my request again. All I know is that the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration was created upon the behest of Arbcom and that the Naming Debates, although quite a runaway train on Wikipedia, are not particularly overshadowing when it comes to debating collaboration in real life. Does it not follow that if Arbcom creates something in the process of a case which is easily taken out of context, such as Ireland collaboration being well out of the context of Ireland naming debates, Could such a request not be linked to the relevant case without deleting an appropriate title leaving all room for confusion outside? Why not? Wouldn't it be a sensible filing technique to view such as Request for clarification: Voting, Ireland article names. There you have both the request and the case linked. It is absolutely clear in my view. It doesn't seem to be extremely over-complicated. I need to apologise for being rather brusque in response to these two edits. In my experience altering the wording of another editors posts is a sackable offence if the words end up different than originally intended and I, as with more or less everybody, support that. Even if an editor is difficult to understand it is best not to alter their words. Many editors make a post which is less than straight forward and other editors make of it what they can but they are never encouraged to alter the words even if they can make nothing of the post. ~ R. T. G 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone add the category
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards to the
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header page, please? (it took a little bit of digging, but that looks like the place that the current
WP:RFAR categorization is done at.)
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 14:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I created a sandbox for the header, at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header/Sandbox. The main idea is still to add the categorization of course, but the big reason for the sandbox was actually to help straighten out the layout "problems" (for lack of a better term). The big change is to place everything in the header into a table, in order to reduce the vast swaths of whitespace (which actually become worse on lower resolution screens, believe it or not!). I'd obviously appreciate it if someone would simply move what's in the sandbox into the page, but I know better then to expect that (anytime you need to ask permission to do something on Wikipedia you've got to expect at least one objection...), so feel free to ask questions, or make comments, or criticize (if someone does decide to make the sandbox live though, be sure to uncomment the footer with all of the categorization and interwiki links, etc...).
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
For my edification: Two of the three cases at requests for clarification have been there for weeks. Is that typical? Maurreen ( talk) 05:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
(de-indent) What we try to do with arbitration, or what I try to do at least, is to try to identify the editors who are holding up consensus. I don't mean that they're in the minority (although in some cases, it's quite usual for those in the minority to try ever parliamentary trick to stop other users from making changes to their preferred version). I mean those editors, which in manner or attitude, stop consensus from forming. In a lot of areas, 80% of the editors discussing a change are relatively willing to seek consensus (although of course they're coming from different points of the spectrum). However, there's 10% on each side, who want it absolutely to be their version or no version at all. The partisans, so to speak. Those are the editors that poison the well, so to speak and are holding up the finding of consensus, Those are the editors I would seek to remove from the area so the vast majority of reasonable editors can find consensus.
Here's why I don't think that ArbCom will ever willingly get dragged into deciding content. Usually in such heated disputes, there are experts on one or both sides. They have done the legwork, provided references that support their wording. They know just about everything there is to know about the area. And then you're asking 16 men and women, to decide content that in some esoteric areas, they know NOTHING about. To mangle a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, we don't even know what we don't know! I'd much rather see if by identifying the bad actors in a topic area, the community can decide the content themselves. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't find the "edit" button in order to respond in this section: [49] Am I missing something there? 99.144.249.249 ( talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed [50]. If I reverted it, would I be violating this remedy? As of this comment, this vandalism has been undealt with for oven an hour. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Committee has often held that vandalism reversion never "counts" as an edit for topic restrictions or revert restrictions. But it is generally unwise to do those reverts oneself unless they are unarguably vandalism. It's best to just report it to someone else. — Coren (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ANI complaint involving a person behind an account mentioned in this finding from the Derek Smart case. The person in question has apparently been using another account ( SPI investigation, which I don't think should have been deleted yet) without telling anyone about it. The ArbCom finding did not pass a remedy on what to do about this person's off-wiki and on campaign against Derek Smart, and I assume that he did not notify the Committee that he had begun using another account. The "real name" account is still trying to influence the Smart article's content via the talk page. Any input on what to do about this from the current Committee-members would be welcome. Cla68 ( talk) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I should note my edit here to the template used to create requests here. While not directly targeted at this page, it is apparent to me that creating admin-only discussion sections is not-wiki. Admin-only conclusion sections, sure, but admin-only discussion appears to be located only in this one template. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you please suggest what should be done, if an AE (appeal) was archived by a bot, but it had not been finished yet. It is here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive63#Appeal_of_the_sanction_against_Aregakn. Aregakn ( talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I wouldn't usually do this, but in this case I think it's a very important information for any admin who would comment on AA2 - and probably for any arbitrator: an arbitration is currently opened on WP:ru :
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6/%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8
Please note that some coordinated actions are relevant for WP:en.
Sardur (
talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Boy, am I hallucinating, or there are really over 20 users involved in such a group, if all those names are involved, where the hell they find that much editors? It would nearly take announcing in the media's and newspapers. I guess if there was such announcement, it would make this even more problematic. Ionidasz ( talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, do you have a scan of that newspaper, or a link? Ionidasz ( talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've seen (I have just read as much as I could for 30 minutes), I think there are sufficient elements to at least request administrators attention here. I have checked some of the organized preparations in articles on Russian Wikipedia and the same was done at the same dates on English Wikipedia. Also, I have found two editors claiming a user of influence (who is an admin) over English Wikipedia have helped them a lot, one of the two specifying the help was against Armenians and Persians. I won't be able to analyse anything, I won't be available for weeks starting tomorow. But Sardur, if you have time, dig, particularly evidences of sockpuppetry used to revert war, mass voting and the use of administrators. Ionidasz ( talk) 16:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Breeins enforcement was archived without closure: [57] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 09:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Initiated by Tryptofish ( talk) at 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
SlimVirgin notified: [58]
I have two (2) specific questions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks, which states:
I also note that this caution was pointed out again at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#SlimVirgin.
I am specifically concerned about personal attacks directed at me and at other editors at pages about animal rights, broadly defined. The most recent occurrence of these was this: [59] at Talk:PETA, but there have been many, many other such instances. My bottom line reason for asking these questions is that I would like such personal attacks to stop. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Steve says he won't look at the specific "personal attack" for various reasons. I did, it's not a personal attack, it's an expression of exasperation at the requester apparently Wikistalking SlimVirgin and reverting edits regardless of the fact that the reverts reintroduce formatting and other issues. The request is an attempt to use ArbCom to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It is likely that the community should be invited to debate a non-interaction sanction between these users, and further investigate SlimVirgin's implied accusation of Wikistalking. Guy ( Help!) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} change
this request for an arbitration case isp premature
to
this request for an arbitration case is premature
because it's a typo 71.109.172.32 ( talk) 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Is very difficult. Really Wikipedia should be made easy for users, not for computer programists. Right now I feel like I am writing some kind of software. Can't they be made more user friendly. The difficulty in filling out this page prevents asking for a request. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the focus of AE should be an editor's behavior post-Arbcom. Will has created a narrative characterizing my behavior in Wikipedia that relies on pre-Arbcom editing. He, and now Fladrif, have painted a picture of repeated violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arbcom must not have agreed that it was as serious as they say, since there was no finding of fact regarding me. Is Will free to paint this narrative, which I don't have time to address point by point? Are we going to replay the Arbcom discussion here? Or should AE focus on post-Arbcom behavior? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In the ArbCom section entitled Guidance for Uninvolved Administrators, it states: "Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations" So why have you included the information below as part of your complaint since none of it is relevant or "required"? Are you attempting to poison the well?
Before I make a statement in Aprock’s request for clarification here, I’d like to know whether this request is being made in the right place, since the race and intelligence arbitration case hasn’t been closed yet. I was under the impression that requests for clarification were specifically for arbitration cases that are already closed. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand why in the case of a topic ban this includes so often article talk page ban. A user is often not disruptive on a talk page and because of his or her too strong interest in a subject may know a lot about the subject and hence give useful comments. In most cases it is easy for other editors to ignore talk page comments of a topic banned user. In my experience, it is also for the user who has been topic banned less frustrating if s/he is still allowed to give comments on the article talk page. Andries ( talk) 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
... is perfect. It shows Stevertigo's contempt for V and NOR, and that he never makes a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. This is a clear case of WP:DE and it seems to me that the weight of opinion at AN/I, which mostly echoes Jim Wae's, is sufficient for administrative action. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
...to force editors to assume good faith and talk to one another?
After observing 9-months of ongoing dramu in Eastern Europe area, with the added benefit of not being able (nor willing) to participate in it, I've come to a sad conclusion that nothing has changed, nor is it showing signs of change. Individual editors may be behaving better (or worse), but the overall picture looks as dim as it had for the past few years. This pattern needs to be broken.
What this pattern boils down to is that too many editors are no longer willing to assume good faith about the "others". They see that their only options are to "fight" them - either by getting them sanctioned or driven away from the project - or leave themselves (or be forced too). Here is a game theory analysis of that. As a by-product, various DR foras, up to and including the Arbitration ones, are saturated with EE-related requests, and the community is increasingly fed-up with that - but no solution to stop either the flood of DR requests or end the underlying conflicts giving rise to them have been found so far.
I see two potential solutions:
I will not elaborate on solution 1), as it is simple in its destructive potential, and will likely occur anyway if 2) fails (or is never attempted), beyond saying that it is not optimal from the "build the encyclopedia" perspective, as may editors involved in conflicts are good content creators, and banning them will significantly hurt the EE topic area for years to come. It should be obvious that the optimal solution is to make those editors stop fighting - but keep them contributing to the project.
I would like to elaborate on 2). Our policies encourage good behavior and punish bad behavior, however we are mostly focusing on the punishment aspect. The EE area has degenerated too far to be receptive to anything but a nuclear punishment - hence the only alternative left is trying to reform and deradicalize the editors involved (and than ban those who refuse to stop fighting even after all that...).
How to force editors to behave well?
First, create a list of editors involved in EE disputes past and present. This would be a dynamic list, with new editors added to it, till such time that the Committee / community deems that the area has stabilized and the list & related remedies can be archived. The list here is a good start, but it is obviously incomplete (I am not on it, for example...); adding all parties from the past EE ArbComs and this years' AE threads should do the trick, though.
Second, all editors on that list would be subject to certain special rules (remedies):
The rationale for the first three remedies is to lessen the burden on the community / committee and to allow editors to work out their problems without abusive forum shopping. The rationale for the fourth remedy is that collaborative content creation is the only way to rebuild good faith and trust among other editors; remember: we need not only to "put a lid" on the conflict, but to "put the fire out" and extinguish the battlefields once and for all. This will not happen as long as the editors keep thinking that those "from the other side" are "evil" and cannot be worked with. The last few remedies further reduce conflict and teach editors to work things out. Finally, let me stress that all of those remedies, after the initial set-up (which should not be difficult), should vastly reduce the workload of the community, as they essentially make the area self-policing (there could be a spike in requests for mediation, but to the best of my knowledge, we have enough mediators to handle a few more requests - I would not anticipate any big floods here).
I elaborate on some ideas here, here, here and here.
I see no body other than the ArbCom (possibly with some community input) that could solve this situation. If this is not done now, we will just continue the current trend of editors fighting, leaving and getting sanctioned, till something breaks (i.e. solution 1 is implemented).
PS. I am posting this on the Requests for Arbitration talk page, as I considered making it a formal arbitration request - but it is quite non-standard, and perhaps the Committee can use it to open a better formatted request themselves. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
This proposal, to put the direct responsibility in EE cases away from ArbCom to a "body other than the ArbCom" sounds a bit strange. Given the strong presence and activities of EEML members on the English Wikipedia, I have a suspicion, this could easily entail a de facto censorship of EE topics by an EEML related superiority. --
Henrig (
talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think what we really need is to reenforce AN/I. ArbCom cannot police content disputes. AN/I ought to be a place for reasoned discussion of fidelity to core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. Somewhere along the line, some people started to think that AGF was all about personal behavior and not commitment to the encyclopedia. In my view, the test of whether or not an editor edits in good faith is their compliance with NPOV, V, and NOR. I know full well there are huge grey areas but these are just the things reasonable people can discuss at AN/I. If someone consistently shows disregard for core content policies, it is a matter of community action, not ArbCom. If the community decides that there is a pattern of disregard for core content policies, then it is up to an admin to enforce whatever sanction the community consideres appropriate. This process will not always work fast, and it will sometims work unevenly, but isn't this true of everything at WP? I happen to think anyone reading over the An/I discussion can see a mainstream view among editors who have dealt with SV. If there is a need for further commnt, we have other mechanisms than ArbCom. WP has been sliding towards giving ArbCom more and more authority in content disputes. I think this is dangerous. If ArbCom wants to help, they can propose to editors alternate strategies. But as far as I can tell the complaints people have about Stevertigo at EE related articles are virtually the same as at other articles, so I do not see how this is a particularly EE problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a good idea, though. Do you think it could be implemented on the community side, as a form of community sanction, if the ArbCom are reluctant to try it? AGK 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be glad to comment—can I have a ruling on whether doing so violates my topic ban?
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The only time I've seen forcing editors to discuss content issues in a productive manner work was when you had several people willing to oversee the situation on a constant basis. These editors usually have to be administrators familiar with the situation but not involved in article editing and they have to be able to put in a lot of time essentially babysitting the process: mediating when needed, warning as appropriate and issuing short bans or blocks if editors persist after being warned. Unfortunately, once things get to the point of needing something this drastic, it's often difficult to reach consensus and the administrators helping can expect to be continuously attacked and probably brought up at ANI and other dispute resolution venues in an attempt to remove them.
The problems I usually see with these disputes is the lack of interest in reaching a real consensus and an inability to let points go when the majority of editors feel differently. I'd be willing to bet that the EE conflicts keep seeing the same arguments and same problems over and over again. Right now we really don't have a good way to stop circular or repeated arguments about the same point which I think is the heart of some of the more serious issues. Shell babelfish 09:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As there have been no objections regarding my question regarding the posting of my thoughts, I've responded below.
On the first set of points
The mere presence of anyone’s name on any list is enough to cast aspersions. "Vecrumba, only recently returned, is on the XYZ list based on his past participation in the Baltic/EE WP:BATTLEGROUND. ..." An article-based list would be more appropriate, for example, a notice (at article talk) that "This article falls under provisions of the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe task force." This accomplishes two things:
The conflict over the Soviet legacy is over what is historical verifiable fact in the first place, not just views or interpretations which differ and which are based on the same set of verifiable historical facts. This is a fundamental distinction as compared to other so-called conflicts over Baltic/EE topics.
On the second set of points, corresponding #'s
I hope this response assists in furthering dialog.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 00:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You can't force people to assume good faith, but you can make them wish they had. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Carrots have been tried and don't work, even less so that the non-carrot approach as it merely proves to the disruptive editors they can do what they want. All this talk on this page misses the real root of the problem - ethnic warriors are fueled by hundreds of years of strife whereby they are convinced the other side is out to do them in and they must do anything to protect themselves and their version of the "truth". So, editors from both sides come to wiki to foment their version of the "truth", thereby adding more fuel to the ethnic war and giving it another forum. Well, guess what people, wiki is not here for that purpose, it's here to build a NPOV encyclopedia, and if you can't play by the rules here, go elsewhere to spread your centuries of ethnic warring. While we're on this, someone remind me, in this topic area, who was I voted to unban and how has that person been doing? FYI for the few who don't know, I virtually never vote to unban someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
@Rlevse: Now that we've sorted that out, let us assume for a moment that some editors at least do care about reputable content in the area of conflict, are tired of said conflict and attacks waged through endless screeching for sanctions seeking to control content through the application of the banhammer, and are looking for ways to neutralize the benefits of conflict escalation. Thoughts?
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Offliner has (
here and
here) made inquiries. I'm happy to WP:AGF this is not stalking and block-shopping, although Offliner has not expressed any concerns to me via talk or off-Wiki via Email. If ArbCom feels that discussing a better future in the context of arbitration talk is inappropriate, please feel free to delete my contributions here and I'll be happy to comment in January. While I frown on editors making edits on the basis of "if I don't hear any objections in X hours/days I'll take that as approval and make the edit" and so don't wish to invoke that here to justify my responses above, I was concerned the conversation was going to go stale and would be archived. Nor am I participating at any article or in any conflict (arbitration, AE, AN/I, et al.). I'm discouraged that the only contribution from my detractors, if you will, so far has been to investigate potential topic ban violations as opposed to offering any constructive comments here. I should note my other attempt at moving on from past conflict was met with escalating attacks (by Petri Krohn) culminating in blatantly false accusations of outing.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not the only dispute of this nature. There are also disputes concerning the Middle East, British Overseas Territories, etc. We could set up a Wikipedia:WikiProject to encourage greater interest by editors with no opinions about these disputes. Also, it might be helpful to tighten the types of sources required for these articles, as was done for medical articles (See WP:MEDRS. TFD ( talk) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There has been a high incidence recently of editors filing requests that are not framed in terms of specific remedies, and admins proposing sanctions that are not specifically supported by ArbCom remedies. I have been fighting against this trend, and would like to explain why. The crucial point is that blocks resulting from AE are not like other blocks: by ArbCom ruling they cannot be reversed except as a result of consultation with ArbCom or formation of a clear consensus at AN. This irreversibility makes it important that blocks issued here be clearly and rigorously justified in terms of the sanctions they are based on. Blocks that go beyond what the sanctions support must not be imposed as part of the AE process. Looie496 ( talk) 23:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You are:
an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;
able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;
courteous, disciplined and open-minded;
able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;
able to make up your own mind under stress.
If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!
Tony (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators
Please see the new page
Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks first, with 40230 kilobytes.
Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there an inherent difference between the words "underhandedly" and "disingenuously"?
With respect,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This case appears to have been archived prematurely. Should it be reinstated? Gatoclass ( talk) 08:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
on all of these arbitration request pages I think we should adopt some special thread naming rules. The problem is that the internal linking gets all mucked up: every request on the pages will have the same stock headers (Involved parties, clerk notes, etc), and a page might (at any given moment) have three or four different sections titled "Statement by userX"as someone responds to different issues. So when someone creates a new request, the template should add a case code (maybe a random char string) to all the stock templates (e.g. "involved parties for case E-f1d4") and editors should be encouraged to use it on all new sections. It would make it a lot easier to track and respond to changes on the page.
A similar thing could be done on actual case pages (e.g. proposed remedies sections) using usernames rather than a case code.
I'm happy to do the template modifications, but since these templates are substed I don't know where they live. anyone want to point me in the right direction? -- Ludwigs2 16:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Are people not involved in an open arb case allowed to make a comment about it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Initiated by MiszaBot II ( talk) at 06:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
would someone please wrap the thing with the div-structure, as above to prevent page widening in modern browsers? Do this elsewhere, too, as needed, 'k? Thanks; I'd just fix it myself, but for my feckin' yellow ticket-of-leave. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 January 2011 (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.
I wonder, has the ArbCom changed its position on publishing extracts of emails from the EEML archive on-wiki? It would be very useful to do this. Most of the serving arbs have never read through this archive (and according to Shell don't have access) though they are still expected to rule on the case. I suggest that the benefits of free quotation (user discretion trusted on personal details) out way the loses in privacy (very easy to find off wiki anyway). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So, is anyone going to put this case out of its misery? 94.116.127.55 ( talk) 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm finding it rather difficult to research past cases. I assumed there would be an 'Archives' page of all past requests for clarifications, amendments, motions etc. but it took about 15 minutes of confused clicking around until I finally learned that "Motions and clarifications associated with arbitration cases are archived to the talk page of the associated case page" (found on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions). It took even longer to discover that there actually was a link in the navbar titled "Index of proceedings" instead of simply "Archives" which was what I'm used to. I'm guessing I'm not the only one having these problems. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions on how to improve the system, but I felt it important to report on how frustrating it was to find specific information about historical past cases, especially when the various talk page links that led me here are all broken from all the shuffling around of pagemoves. I strongly believe that all past archives have historical worth, and should be cohesive and easy to follow. It's a shame that we have such a fragmented system of record-keeping. -- œ ™ 12:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
A list and summary of cases themselves is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests ( WP:RFAR/C); at least that's how I always find it, though it's been moved around under the newish and newly complicated pagenaming system. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Setting aside the awful grammar, is this really an appropriate way to characterise editors who may be under ArbCom restrictions? Seems less than chivalrous to me. It's in the big pink box on the Request Enforcement page under the heading Conduct at Arbitration Enforcement. Lovetinkle ( talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Please note Tom Reedy's comment a few hours ago to his request for enforcement against BenJonson:
I found the same when I tried to fill in the template on 2 March (and used the despairing edit summary "Oh how I hate templates" [66]), also about BenJonson. Actually, it's not templates so much that I hate, as this template. I'm sure it's perfectly simple for people who have become used to it, but for the rest of us it's indeed impenetrable. We have to spend a lot of time on it and we still never get it right. (Sandstein kindly reformated Tom's request; now it's very handsome. Mine was mistimed or too ugly or something... still not sure what the problem was.) I'm intellectually sure the designer, or improver, of the template meant well, but emotionally, I simply feel his/her purpose is to torment me, to make me feel a fool, and, worse, to make sure arbitration sanctions are actually not reinforced.
Can somebody please simplify the page? For instance, why does a template have to be full of other templates?? Is there somebody out there with pedagogical smarts as well as nerdsmarts? Bishonen | talk 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC).
}}
to close a link instead of ]]
, which confused the parser enough that the entire subst didn't go through.
T. Canens (
talk) 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)I also find the template difficult and a pain in da butt, and I've filed several reports in the past. Formatting them properly (nm tracking down the diffs and writing the text) can be very time consuming. One recurrent problem is, as I recall that if you put a space, " ", in the wrong place after the "=" sign, or thread your paragraphs in a particular way, the whole thing becomes misformatted and then you have to spend oodles of time looking for that one particular space, " ", that is messing everything up.
Having said all that, I'm actually not against the template. The way I see it, there is way too many frivolous, battleground motivated AE requests already, and having a complicated template, by imposing a cost on the filer, cuts down (though not enough) on the number of these. It's simple economics - costs up, quantity demanded for frivolous sanctions goes down, the block/ban market works more efficiently (yes, there may be side effects in that some legit requests don't get filed, but that's true of any medication that packs a punch). In fact, I would encourage Sandstein & Co. to put some extra effort and work into the template and make it even more complicated. I'm not familiar enough with wikimarkup to offer any concrete suggestions, but it sounds like T. Canens has the skills. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! But the current code:
does not seem to work as expected; the text entered into the editbox does not appear in the preloaded content. Does it need to be passed as a parameter or something? Sandstein 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think it relevant enough, or rather my place, to request some clarification on the "Single Account" terminology. (This question is brought about by the "Jack Merridew" issues. I long ago read through all the WP:SOCK, and WP:Alt Account stuff and other various policies and guidelines; but, I don't recall that IP (that is, not logged in) was considered "an account". I've noticed lately that there seems to be some confusion to that end, at least from my perspective. So, my question is: If a user who has an account edits without being logged in, is that considered to be editing from a second account? Is that explicitly stated somewhere? Perhaps AC would consider mentioning this when they address the current clarification request before them. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Ched : ? 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this. user:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator , and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am.
If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination.
IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions.
May I please write this article? Thanks -- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Re-organisation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, because this page seems (per #Article permission request) to receive very little attention. AGK [ • 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Where does the existence of this notice in the "Results" section at WP:AE come from: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.? As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong about this, there's nothing in the original ArbCom ruling which says that such a section must exist, or that it is somehow necessary to forcibly exclude non-admin editors, many of whom are more familiar with a particular topic area than the AE-admin-regulars, from the general discussion.
Admins ARE the only people who can enact bans/blocks and discretionary sanctions, but there is nothing here which says that non-admins cannot participate in the discussion of the proposed results. We are still a community of Wikipedia editors, even if some of us are admins and others aren't.
I could just as well make a notice which says that This section is to be edited only by right handed editors. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. and remove statements made by anyone I suspect of being a southpaw.
Why is that there? Honest question. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Statements posted on requests for arbitration are supposed to be a maximum of 500 words long, with a certain non-specified extra allowance per the judgment of the clerks, where needed. However... FT2's statement in the Mindbunny request is 2,000 words. Is this ridiculous length a special dispensation for former arbs? Or is it a tacit acknowledgement that FT2 is unable to restrain himself, length-wise, and must therefore be indulged? Or have the clerks decided to drive us all mad? Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 17:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
There is a problem here. Long statements are generally not helpful, particularly if there are lots of cases for arbs to read, and particularly if a case has lots of long rants that amount to peanut throwing from the gallery. OTOH, we have fewer cases there days, and often the request statements and responses to such by parties and arbs are the means by which the dispute itself is resolved. If is effectively the parties having a last ditch attempt to discuss matters with the eyes of the community and the committee on them - the result of which is often that the case is solved, or another solution emerges which saves the committee the far greater timesink of an actual case. Thus a strictly enforced word limit, even if set higher, may be problematic. I suppose you could limit contributions from non-parties (but often these are more perceptive and objective than partisan screeds). Alternatively, you need to have clerks judge the merits of contributions over a certain length, which has its own problem. The solution, I suspect, is simply to warn people that longer contributions are less likely to be carefully read. The maxim tl;dr often applies. Although long posts by certain people are usually worth reading.-- Scott Mac 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The clerks should be instructed to simply remove text from the 501th word onwards, with a note to that effect, plus a message on the person's talk page inviting them to reword their post so it's compliant. Again, the clerks wouldn't have to do it much after people realised the Committee's rules mean what they say. The Committee needs to encourage succinctness in editor's posts to it: I say this as much for the benefit of the process as for that of the arbitrators and clerks themselves, who should be given the opportunity to make their decisions on the basis of tightly reasoned arguments. It's not a soap-box for editors. Tony (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The rules say very clearly (bolded): "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail."
But it seems that the clerks are just ignoring this. Quite a few entries are in the 800–1100 range. Which other bolded rules about ArbCom procedure will the clerks ignore? Tony (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I ask that the clerk recuse and be replaced by one who is overtly uninvolved in the matter and prepared to act with neutrality. Tony (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a re-occurring problem but, as AGK says, the hard part is deciding on what should be the maximum, and when clerks should intervene, especially when people new to arbitration are involved. Arbitrators generally dont care too much about this because waffly comments that are not addressed quickly end up being read by the entire committee anyway, and we dont enjoy watching someone refine their statement because then we need to read each revision as well. Perhaps we could start to make inroads by having a {{sidebox}}
(similar to the one beside this comment) added to all statements, evidence, etc. which are over length.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to ask that the procedure "Submission of evidence" is changed by adding the following short sentence:
The issue is that a user who writes a statement of <500 words may then feel obligated to respond to others' questions. They then have to modify the original statement so that original statement and all responses fit into 500 words. Often this can't be done.
For example, in the current "Political activism" case, Coren posted an original statement of 373 words. But his current statement comprises 1110 words, including two replies of 130 and 99 words respectively.
This is far from atypical. It is clear that users are staying within the limits for the original statements. But if any of these (by way of example) had to later also fit their original point and also replies to all other users within the same 500 words, they struggle.
Could the Committee consider making it clear that replies are outside the original 500 words and providing a limit or a target average words per reply (some shorter, some longer), or simply noting that responses are not formally word limited, because it's clear many users have difficulty on fitting replies into that word count. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
At a participating editor's invitation, I sent them an example of how easy it is to reduce statement text and in doing so to make it more effective. The revised version of just their final paragraph came down from 200 to 110 words without loss of substantive meaning, and was greeted very positively by the editor. It's not rocket-science: anyone here can do it. But it won't happen until the clerks apply the existing rules. No one takes the slightest notice of the rules at the moment, yet I believe it's a matter of both social practicality and consideration for the arbs. Tony (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we have:
A 1000 word limit for people listed as parties
Keep the 500 word limit for everyone else, and this word limit includes any follow up thoughts by non-parties.
Replies to arbitrators do not count, provided they are an actual response. (this is part of
user:Neutron's proposal above)
No word limit is imposed on arbitrators comments within the arbitrator section.
John Vandenberg (
chat) 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that it's a faux pas, but I added "I agree", or words to that effect, to three comments. If it's taboo, please slap me with a fish on my talk page. Thanks. Bearian ( talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I am posting an updated version of my unanswered question from two weeks ago, as it seems to have been swept aside in the aftermath of the latest big wikidramu, which took over those pages shortly after I posted it, and was later weirdly archived here.
Regarding WP:DIGWUREN ( Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be:
If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)