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 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi. A quick question. In listing "involved parties" in an arbcom about an editor's behavior at an AfD and related matters, is it sufficient to contact all the editors who discussed his behavior with him? Where there was also a follow-up AN/I, is it sufficient to copy the closer of the AN/I (or should I leave word of the arb case at the AN/I? Or are the commenters at the AN/I who were not involved with his behavior also considered "invloved parties" requiring contact?) Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have noted for some time that the Committee requests page has a somewhat out-of-control Table of Contents. I believe greater clarity would be achieved with the Template:TOC limit, which forces the table to list only level 2 and 3 subheadings. This will really help navigation. I am going to WP:BOLD and insert it, but if anyone is opposed, feel free to revert. — Finn Casey * * * 01:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Per the above comment, perhaps the first modification was excessive. The Template:TOC limit can be modified to suppress only certain level headings. I will implement the next level of permissiveness, TOC-4. To summarize our options:
The goal is to balance the ability to find specific sections with the need for concise clarity (that is, after all, the purpose of a table of contents). The more detail that is included, the harder it becomes to wade through all the sub-sub-sub headings to find the right one. Opinions regarding the preferred method are welcome. — Finn Casey * * * 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to use the template for filing an arbcom enforcement request, but it doesn't format. Can someone explain how to do it correctly? Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
To elaborate on this suggestion, one of the most troublesome things to deal with as a mentor are occasions when the mentoree ventures out on their own and takes action that is provocative and objectionable but probably sub-blockable. I wish you had come to me first is a conversation I've had many times with most of my mentorees, and probably Mattisse's mentors have had with her too. No mentor likes to engage in damage control because the action is usually right on the edge. So unless the mentor's criticism is both stern and public the mentor is liable to get accused of enabling bad behavior; often the situation isn't quite black and white.
Earlier this year certain members of the Committee tried to initiate a version of "empowered" mentorship that was basically reactive. That model was unworkable. Mentorship itself as an arbitration remedy seldom succeeds. After the ADD case and this one, perhaps the reason is becoming more clear. It puts the cart before the horse to say that mentorship exists to avoid sanctions. Mentorship actually exists to render sanctions unnecessary. The more visible and politicized a mentorship becomes, the harder it is for that mentorship to succeed.
The screener alternative is not mentorship. Mainly a screener function is to sift wheat from chaff and prevent "drama" before it starts. Instead of I wish you would come to me before you post that the situation becomes You must come to me before you post that. If the screener feels like incorporating mentorship into that model they're free to do so. Principally it saves the the effort of putting out fires, which is a primary cause of mentor burnout.
The main obstacle to be anticipated is the "under the radar" post: subtle context-driven snarks that slip through the screening process. A fair and reasonable solution could probably deal with that, along with provisions for what would follow if evidence mounts that the screening process is being gamed. Durova 363 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place but I have blocked User:Mccready who currently has a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban]] following this sequence. The discussion follows from prior attempts from other admins at dealing with the topic ban at issue and so the prior conduct may be relevant. The block is for one week, but if it affects the Arbitration request in any way, I will (or anyone else can) unblock him to allow him to speak. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
In the case concerning the Audit Subcomittee I notice that a couple of arbitrators have recused "as a formal matter". What does that mean? Is this typical language when recusing that I've just never picked up on before or does it denote some special characteristic of the recusal? 80.65.247.36 ( talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate I'm a nobody and I apologise if this has already been addressed elsewhere but I can't help noticing recent parallels to the current Giano case. Another arbitrator recently threatened Giano with a block over issues so closely related that... let's face it, it's the same topic and same concerns exactly. In relation to John Vandenberg's comments about arbitrators appearing to act in an official capacity, it's perhaps worth noticing that that arbitrator was acting on behalf of a group (referred to as "us") that at least might reasonably have been taken to mean the committee. "If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour."
Some questions:
217.28.2.130 ( talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Community review and input is requested here. Durova 386 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Per some discussion I found at arb-related pages, I have proposed a modest new policy with regards to how arbitrators should conduct administrators actions. U A 21:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
From his comments and relief, I think Coren may be under the impression that Carcharoth's assurance that no "binding precedent" will be created by this ruling is in some way different to the assurances that no binding precedents are created by any of the other ArbCom rulings either. 217.28.2.130 ( talk) 09:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I am aware you are trying to kill off the discussion about community-initiated admin recall in favour of pretending that RfC/U can somehow compel resignations. I believe that you believe you are pushing for the best outcome that is possible, but I also believe that your approach is doomed. RfC/U cannot force a resignation any more than it can force any other binding outcome. Certainly it would be a high effort-low reward approach for dealing with Arbitrator misconduct. What is needed is a binding Arbitrator Recall mechanism so that the question of whether an Arbitrator retains the trust of the community can be tested... but who knows if we'll ever get one. The 2009 Committee promised one (and did achieve some useful reforms early in its term) so maybe it will happen some day. If we are fortunate, such a recall mechanism could be adapted to administrator recall. At the moment, however, there is no method of forced accountability for arbitrators and only a tenuous one for administrators. And the present ArbCom have justed acted to undermine the notion of administrator accountability. What a notable achievement for the end of the year... the incoming arbitrators must be so grateful to be starting out with the foolish actions of their predecessors and colleagues hanging over their heads. EdChem ( talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(de-indenting for Sanity :)) And I say that the current proceedure (RfC/RfArb) IS an impeachment process. I would assume any arbitrator who screwed up that bad to require a RfC/RfArb would resign as well, so it can be said to exist already. SirFozzie ( talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
User:William M. Connolley has been accused of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Wikipedia to the effect of minimizing the Medieval Warm Period to further an environmental agenda. Where should this be addressed? - Roy Boy 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare is getting out of hand. I ask that an administrator take control of the discussion.
The only questions to be decided at AE, based on Brews ohare's arbitration sanctions, are:
The answer to both questions is, No. However, discussion has spiraled off in other directions. There is now a debate between pure mathematicians and applied mathematicians (those who use the math, such engineers and physicists) about the article's approach; the mathematicians actually disdain the use of sources, among other differences. And this has degenerated into name-calling and questioning one another's good faith and motives. David Tombe's arguments in Brews' support are not helping Brews or the process: Tombe was sanctioned in the same arbitration as Brews (which diminishes his credibility) and his manner is combative. Could an administrator please step in to take control of this melee? Thank you.— Finell 05:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Are outside views possible or how does one go about adding additional parties? While the arbitration case has been opened it only includes his latest dispute and this is in fact a long term issue that has gone on with this editor and involved dozens of other editors. I wouldn't want arbcom to get the wrong impression that the issue is only with the most recent behaviour, so I'd like to add a statement about my interaction with him a year ago to provide context if at all possible.-- Crossmr ( talk) 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'." [1] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The motion now apparently to be approved says that the deletions in question were "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion", that "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." and that "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." It also recommends that an RfC or similar discussion determine "the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".
Many editors, on both sides of the issue, are reading this to say that continuation of mass deletions, without discussion, is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, and that interfering with such deletions is not acceptable, and possibly subject to sanction. This view seems supported by the statement (in voting reasons section) by Coren ( talk · contribs) that "Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory." This view seems opposed by Coren's statement that "the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion[s] have taken place." and by the statement of Shell Kinney ( talk · contribs) (with which two othe arbitrators have indicated agreement) that "as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out."
I note that Scott MacDonald ( talk · contribs) seems to have continued multiple undiscussed deletions up at least 13:12, 21 January 2010, which, unless I'm being fooled by a timezone error, is after the 5th vote for the motion was posted. Although of course the motions has not yet been officially adopted, with nine votes in favor it looks, well, rather likely at the moment. Based on this, and on the history of the issue, and the statements of various admins, it seems to me likely that such deletions will continue as things now stand.
If the ArbCom really wants to have future deletions occur only via some yet to be determined mechanism with consensus support (whether a variant of WP:PROD, a new WP:CSD, a variant of Incubation or some other mechanism) than I think it would be wise to amend its motions, or pass a further motion, to explicitly say that future mass deletions are not acceptable, or under what if any circumstances they would be subject to future sanction. If this is not done, any admin who wishes to continue such deletions can cite the "commended" language and the warning against interference, and argue that in the absence of future interference, deletions will not be "chaotic". In the face of this motion, It would be hard to block for such actions.
I ask the ArbCom hypothetically, if such deletions continue and some admin does block the deletors and that block is brought here as a violation of this ruling, how will you handle the matter?
I ask the ArbCom to at least consider a temporary injunction against future mass deletions, pending community discussion and adoption of some mechanism for handling unsourced BLPs. Such an injunction could include a time limit by which, if no such process is adopted, the floodgates will open, or should I say the drains.
In the absence of any explicit comment by the ArbCom on future deletions, there is IMO less incentive for those favoring deletion to work on a mechanism that balances the competing interests at stake here, and even if adopted, more chance that such a mechanism will fail if any admin feels free to avoid it by unilateral deletion. DES (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally I'm a big fan of WP:DEADLINE... but maybe not this time. How about ArbCom tacks on a clarifier, to wit, "the community needs to put a process (fitting certain parms specified as follows??) in place that gets the job done satisfactorily by date X. Admins are not to do any additional summary deletions until after X. If by X, the process is in place, that is what they will use. If it is not in place by then, the community is reminded that they were required to create one, and the summary deletions may then resume". Make X something reasonable. (2 weeks? a month at the most). Then, having boldly led, get out of the way and let the community organise one that is satisfactory to all concerned. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The lesson out of this is: if trying to change policy, abuse
Wikipedia cornerstone policies to your heart's content, abuse anyone who gets in the way, get enough people on your side, and ArbCom will back you all the way. The decision taken is cowardly and compromised in the extreme and we will see another case, with sanctions, here in a couple of months as the two sides are entrenched.
Orderinchaos 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Placed here so as to not clutter the voting sections even more.
— Coren (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, so hopefully this will reach the ArbCom's attention.
I'd like to request a temporary injunction against User:JBsupreme. Over the past day, even after being added to this case, he has been tagging dozens of BLPs with {{ prod}}, along with an insistence that the prod not be removed ( example). This is contrary to prod's purpose, and is about the nearest thing to "rogue deletions" that a non-admin can do. This is just pouring that much more gasoline on the flames of this case, and I see no sign that he will stop unless someone of authority steps in and tells him to.
Thanks.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'." [3] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The motion now apparently to be approved says that the deletions in question were "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion", that "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." and that "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." It also recommends that an RfC or similar discussion determine "the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".
Many editors, on both sides of the issue, are reading this to say that continuation of mass deletions, without discussion, is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, and that interfering with such deletions is not acceptable, and possibly subject to sanction. This view seems supported by the statement (in voting reasons section) by Coren ( talk · contribs) that "Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory." This view seems opposed by Coren's statement that "the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion[s] have taken place." and by the statement of Shell Kinney ( talk · contribs) (with which two othe arbitrators have indicated agreement) that "as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out."
I note that Scott MacDonald ( talk · contribs) seems to have continued multiple undiscussed deletions up at least 13:12, 21 January 2010, which, unless I'm being fooled by a timezone error, is after the 5th vote for the motion was posted. Although of course the motions has not yet been officially adopted, with nine votes in favor it looks, well, rather likely at the moment. Based on this, and on the history of the issue, and the statements of various admins, it seems to me likely that such deletions will continue as things now stand.
If the ArbCom really wants to have future deletions occur only via some yet to be determined mechanism with consensus support (whether a variant of WP:PROD, a new WP:CSD, a variant of Incubation or some other mechanism) than I think it would be wise to amend its motions, or pass a further motion, to explicitly say that future mass deletions are not acceptable, or under what if any circumstances they would be subject to future sanction. If this is not done, any admin who wishes to continue such deletions can cite the "commended" language and the warning against interference, and argue that in the absence of future interference, deletions will not be "chaotic". In the face of this motion, It would be hard to block for such actions.
I ask the ArbCom hypothetically, if such deletions continue and some admin does block the deletors and that block is brought here as a violation of this ruling, how will you handle the matter?
I ask the ArbCom to at least consider a temporary injunction against future mass deletions, pending community discussion and adoption of some mechanism for handling unsourced BLPs. Such an injunction could include a time limit by which, if no such process is adopted, the floodgates will open, or should I say the drains.
In the absence of any explicit comment by the ArbCom on future deletions, there is IMO less incentive for those favoring deletion to work on a mechanism that balances the competing interests at stake here, and even if adopted, more chance that such a mechanism will fail if any admin feels free to avoid it by unilateral deletion. DES (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally I'm a big fan of WP:DEADLINE... but maybe not this time. How about ArbCom tacks on a clarifier, to wit, "the community needs to put a process (fitting certain parms specified as follows??) in place that gets the job done satisfactorily by date X. Admins are not to do any additional summary deletions until after X. If by X, the process is in place, that is what they will use. If it is not in place by then, the community is reminded that they were required to create one, and the summary deletions may then resume". Make X something reasonable. (2 weeks? a month at the most). Then, having boldly led, get out of the way and let the community organise one that is satisfactory to all concerned. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The lesson out of this is: if trying to change policy, abuse
Wikipedia cornerstone policies to your heart's content, abuse anyone who gets in the way, get enough people on your side, and ArbCom will back you all the way. The decision taken is cowardly and compromised in the extreme and we will see another case, with sanctions, here in a couple of months as the two sides are entrenched.
Orderinchaos 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, so hopefully this will reach the ArbCom's attention.
I'd like to request a temporary injunction against User:JBsupreme. Over the past day, even after being added to this case, he has been tagging dozens of BLPs with {{ prod}}, along with an insistence that the prod not be removed ( example). This is contrary to prod's purpose, and is about the nearest thing to "rogue deletions" that a non-admin can do. This is just pouring that much more gasoline on the flames of this case, and I see no sign that he will stop unless someone of authority steps in and tells him to.
Thanks.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Placed here so as to not clutter the voting sections even more.
— Coren (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been discussed a bit, but that BLP motion is something that arbcom should look at (even if arbcom made the motion). What kind of process do we have to look into it? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we have a block template customized to blocks that are placed as a result of arbitration enforcement, and that links to the special conditions under which such a block can be overturned ? Right now an admin responding to an unblock request may not realize, (a) that the block was a result of AE unless they see the block edit-summary, (2) that the block should not be overturned simply on their own discretion. Of course, these wouldn't be an issue, if the admin followed good practice and consulted with the blocking admin, but we should at least attempt to make the applicable policies as accessible as possible. Thoughts ? Abecedare ( talk) 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
To prevent people from incorrectly filing cases at this page, as happened recently, I created an editnotice here. Feel free to improve it. Ucucha 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
After having a brief discussion with Sandstein [5], I would like to ask: Could Russavia file his request in light of his editing restriction: [6]? Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits.
I'm accused of posting "aggressive" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page. [7] [8]
Jzg then makes an accusation that, "It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. [5] - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs." This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, and edits, in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here [9], it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived [10] - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing. [11] I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists.
As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Wikipedia. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom. [12]. To the argument that Wikipedia had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term. [13]
My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition [14] [15] of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would not be: a review of climate science. [16] Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue.
I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. [17] My criticism of Lambert [18] & Quiggin [19] has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". [20] [21] [22] There is no grey area there either. One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Wikipedia. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a WP:RS regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this.
Lambert & Quiggin continue even now to display poor and biased judgement with regards to the BLP subjects noted throughout these discussions. In Lambert's very last exchange here at Wikipedia he states that the Lott article has seen a number of "favorable" edits from "Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" [ [23]] Lambert makes a number of serious charges there against a non-wikipedian he paints a puppet master. Think about this. An undergraduate student said, "Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo" in a screed largely devoted to criticizing the BB coach. Which Tim Lambert then regurgitated and misquoted as unequivocal fact on Wikipedia as, "...strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" - while notably labeling a civilian, university department chair, non-project participant as a Wikipedia sock-master. This is precisely the method, and the problem, when one spends ones days engaged in character assassination and ones nights writing your target's BLP's. It's the problem here.
Quiggin, also in his very last edit at Wikipedia, has also apparently decided to not even wait until the proceedings finish to completely break his assurances made directly to Jimbo, Jzg and the community not to edit the mainpage of his enemies on Wikipedia. [24] Lindzen is named often, and prominently throughout these discussions, Jzg even listed that specific BLP in his original complaint against Quiggin.
I have not discussed nor suggested any action, I simply made my concerns known. This started from my defending The Times as a reliable source and has been made into Drama by Jzg, unnecessarily. I've tackled a tough subject involving an editor with close associations here, but my conduct has been civil, reasonable and well supported. That shooting the messenger has progressed to this level is unsettling. 99.135.173.194 ( talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have copied this over for you
mark nutley (
talk) 18:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Administrators involved in Arbitration Enforcement, or interested in participating, are encouraged to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to better streamline and coordinate enforcement actions. NW ( Talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I was blocked for 24 hours for violating an interaction ban I was part is. The issue is that I didn't violate it and I want to appeal for this blocked to be removed from my log of blocks. I don't exactly sure where and how I should do it. I already contacted ArbCom via e-mail during my blocked(about few hours ago, yet didn't get any response-so I guess it is possible to post it here instead). I have all diffs and etc ready-jusy need help in filling the request.
Thanks-- Gilisa ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can closed cases have their probations reactivated? Or the same restrictions re-applied even if the case has closed? Or can an admin simply enforce them without re-opening the case? User in question is doing it again. SGGH ping! 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Rvcx has cherry picked anti-Mathsci dispute resolution steps, and has omitted other important steps that have been taken, such as
I think that omitting other important steps is not the best way to start an arbitration process. I would suggest listing them in chronological order. Wapondaponda ( talk) 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any real dispute or issue with anyone regarding the Kosovo article. That said, before I unintentionally stir up a hornets nest, what are the reasonable parameters in which we may develop the lead section of the Kosovo article as it relates to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which superseded the earlier Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo? I ask, because earlier today I made this edit, which I don't think is controversial (although I did employ some poor proof reading...). The edit was pretty quickly rolled back, but because of the combination of the ArbCom rulings as well as the generally anti-encyclopedic editors who dominate all such articles, I can't tell if it is even worth trying to make an attempt at building the content. Thoughts? There's not a lot of room to do any meaningful work, and as someone who was initially drawn to Wikipedia years ago because of my amateur interest in history, I must admit that it's frustrating to see Wikipedia 2010 in such a creatively stagnant straight jacket. The very fact that something can be deemed a "controversial" edit purely on grounds of opinion is a little demoralizing. Am I really way off target here? Hiberniantears ( talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No I am not alone - Read the discussion page, others agree with me....but enough of that here. 84.203.72.8 ( talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As clarification, I would like to point out that as an editor, one's bias should be entirely suppressed. This may sound slightly blunt, but the very point of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to be an exercise in objectivity, but this is often conflated with being an exercise in balancing one side's "truth" against another's. That's ultimately what I'm inquiring about. What are the parameters in which we can pursue objectivity at the expense of balance? As it stands now, we have abandoned entire subject areas with vast potential to some sort of intellectual Green Line. Hiberniantears ( talk) 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The Template-note is intended as an NPOV status description for inclusion in all Kosovo-related articles. It describes the level of international recognition/non-recongition of Kosovo-statehood internationally. There is an argument about whether or how states that are not UN members should be counted in the Template. User Bazonka and others argue that only those non-UN member states that recognise Kosovo should be counted. I and others disagree and say that surely all non-UN member states should be counted or none at all? The help of arbitrators would be appreciated. A link to the current vote is above and the discussion page generally is above. Thanks for taking some time to look into this. 84.203.72.8 ( talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that each of the subheadings parenthetically include the name of the case. Otherwise, it is unclear on our watchlists and in the page history which case is being discussed. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to my editing restriction, can I comment about users like here or edit old Russian history like here? I had this talk with Carcharoth and he suggested to ask at WP:AE if needed. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 21:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope it's okay if before I respond I can get clarification. Will wrote this: "The recent ArbCom case noted several principles, including findings COI and the use of sources. It directed editors to review those findings and avoid recurring problems." It doesn't seem clear to me, and I believe that it would suggest to a reader that there was a formal finding of fact regarding conflict of interest. I have long acknowledged having a conflict of interest, and Arbcom did articulate a principle regarding COI that advises caution (while also noting that stating the a principle doesn't mean there was a finding of fact), but I don't see there was any actual finding of fact in that regard. Could this sentence be clarified? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, Will says this: "ArbCom finding that COI has been a problem with this topic (as well as findings on sourcing and neutrality), the editor does not seem to be able to separate his role in the movement from his role as a Wikipedia editor." I don't see those things in the findings of fact. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement, the "Principles" include sections on:
Then the "Remedies" includes this item:
It is my belief that TimidGuy has not conducted himself in full compliance with those principles. Another remedy is:
I consider this a sufficiently serious violation of the editorial process to merit a formal warning. Will Beback talk 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that TG is saying that the sentence below, included in your complaint, is inaccurate and misleading, since it states that there were "findings COI", when if fact there were no such "findings", only general principles which applied to all parties, as you have made clear in your post above. Perhaps you might consider rectifying this error.
Give the acrimonious turn this took, and given Everyking's pretty unreserved undertaking going forward, I have withdrawn this as moot. Can I suggest everyone would be served best were it to be speedy closed, and let the record show that happily Everyking is "released on his own parole".-- Scott Mac 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the AE enforcement process so I apologize if I am asking questions that are too basic. Are there any standing editing restrictions, such as perhaps general one-revert restrictions or something like that, related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If yes, is there some appropriate tag that could be placed at the talk page of affected articles? I just came across this particular article, Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement, which seems to have been the subject of edit warring in the past, and where one of the editors involved in that edit warring User:GeneralChoomin (who also had vandalized the article back in April [29] and was blocked for disruption back then), has returned and CSD tagged the article [30]. I declined the speedy and added a couple of refs. I am not particularly interested in the subject of the article, but if there are any standing arbitration rulings relevant there, they probably need to be mentioned at the article's talk page in some way. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there some existing ArbCom ruling with instructions or advise to the effect that one administrators' noticeboard should not overrule a decision taken and recorded on another administrators' noticeboard, without consulting the later board? -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sidenote: This website is definitely getting more complicated than any one person can keep track of. I am not sure whether I find it amusing or alarming that I am one of the arbitrators, have been an administrator for three and one-half years, and it now turns out that there's an entire noticeboard (albeit a relatively new one) that I never even heard of before. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello TS. I saw your recent filing at AE. Neither of these editors has been officially warned about discretionary sanctions yet. Per this old version of your Notices page I see that you used to be the main person leaving CC notices. The only notice for a person I have seen anyone leave since the CC case was closed is this one for Ed Poor. That notice comes across as indicating misbehavior. Is there no way to provide a 'neutral' notice? In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Remedies I see there is still a notice requirement. Your old wording for the notices you left was fairly non-judgmental, and I hope a new notice can be developed in a similar vein. Are you willing to propose any wording for this? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I do think it's better not to use any formal notices at all until there is problem behavior, and then to leave the task to a neutral admin. For the purpose of notification, I'm currently in the process of replacing all the old probation notices on article talk pages with equivalent general sanctions notices that point to the wording of the remedy in the arbitration final decision. For an example, check out the one at talk:global warming.
Now some editors have even complained that notices on article talk pages are intimidating, but I think they're necessary. If an editor seems to be acting in an overly aggressive way or is otherwise making it hard for other editors, a polite informal word or two can be left on his user talk page informing him of the sanctions and pointing at the talk page notice, and hopefully he won't take it amiss. Tasty monster (= TS ) 17:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A template warning for this also exists. For Climate Change, it would be {{ subst:uw-sanctions|cc}}. NW ( Talk) 19:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious, what's the time after which amendment/clarification requests are archived due to inactivity? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Preamble: This post is NOT about WMC, his case simply provides the example; this post is about AE block appeals in general. I post this preamble to answer in advance why (a) I didn't post to user talk:WGFinley (though I will post a link to here from there) and (b) this is not appealing (or whatever) on WMC's behalf. PLEASE can we keep this discussion on-topic, and not divert into a discussion of WMC. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I note the closure of the WMC appeal and the subsequent post from WGFinley to WMC's talk page: "There being no consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn your block I have closed your AE appeal accordingly". I further note the relevant ArbCom motion which states that "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" is required for reversing an AE block. I am wondering whether standard AE practice of having an uninvolved administrators section is effectively devaluing the input of uninvolved non-administrator editors in the consideration of appeals. Is evaluation of appeals regularly considering primarily or only the input of administraors? Further, the ArbCom motion specifically nominates WP:AN and WP:ANI as appropriate community discussion noticeboards for appeal of AE blocks, so is it appropriate that such block appeals tend to be re-directed to AE? Should the location of a block appeal be the choice of the blocked editor? Arbitrator comments on the 2010 motion (and earlier comment, IIRC) has been appreciative of the efforts of the administrators who work in AE, but has also noted that much of the community at large stays away from AE - consequently, I wonder whether the wording chosen in the motion indicates the desirability of having appeals brought before a wider audience than just the AE regulars. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to revdel a repeated addition of personal information and am getting a permission denied / already applied error. When I check from my account (administrator) it shows as there, not revdel'ed. When I check as an IP there are no visible page history versions newer than August.
Am I confused, did I do something horribly wrong, ??
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I sent an email last week, when do you think I should start hearing something back? 96.50.86.207 ( talk) 22:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added another user to the AE request on Littleolive oil with further difs. Is it okay in this format or should another AE be opened? Had ask here [32] prior. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not knowing exactly where to place this on the main page itself. Anyway, as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions#Ottava Rima - Conditions for return to editing, the editor in question would be allowed to return to editing upon completion of the one year ban and upon resolution of what restrictions, if any, the editor would be placed under subsequent to the end of the ban. It was indicated there that there might be some input from the community, and I would favor the possibility of such community input, if such is acceptable to the members of the ArbCom. John Carter ( talk) 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I created this
It will be useful! All best! -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
re: Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
NB; this is now an *undo* request; see comment below; Jack Merridew 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please note this is here via (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)
Template talk:Sanction enforcement request#Admin only discussion section has ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of admin-only sections. Currently there is not wide engagment with the broader editting community. (I.e. I'm getting killed in the debate.) I'm placing this notice here to ensure that micro-local consensus reflects broader consensus, and to stimulate further discussion.
Aaron Brenneman (
talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can search the archives of this talk page using the handy field at the top. I'd like to search the actual "Arbitration Requests for amendment". Can somebody implement a similar function please? Lightmouse ( talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to clarify that in my understanding pasting the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} to the previous section concerned with enforcement will produce all the relevant entries now seen in appeals headed by
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Koakhtzvigad, i.e.
Appealing user
Sanction being appealed In accordance with WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning you etc.
Administrator imposing the sanction
I'm not sure that this is the right place for this observation, and it may have been discussed elsewhere before, but what this is not is a request for action or enforcement at the article I'm going to use as an example, as it appears that the edit war there may have ceased for the time being and the disputants may be at least somewhat open to WP:DR.
I want to question the wisdom of using 1RR for everyone editing at an article or in a subject matter such as has been done at WP:ARBPIA, at least not without an addition which says that what is really restricted is edit warring, broadly construed. That is, for example, I think the first and third bullet point of {{ Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} ought to read:
It appears to me, on admittedly scant evidence, is that the 1RR restriction on an entire article merely encourages tit–for–tat edit warring with reverts, in effect, 24 hours and 1 second apart. (I don't think the same is necessarily true when individual editors are restricted, though I can see it happening in some cases there, too.) For an example see Refaat Al-Gammal. With the restrictions written the way they are, edit warring of this nature can only be taken to the usual edit warring channels, rather than be immediately sanctioned.
FWIW and best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding arbitration case "Noleander": should I add a statement now? Or is the case in an "accept or not" phase, and I should wait until it is formally accepted? I read the arbitration instructions, and it sounds like there will be an Evidence subpage created, and maybe I should wait for that to get created and put my statement there? (Apologies if this is a bone-headed question, but I've never participated in an arbitration before). -- Noleander ( talk) 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Barring objections in the AN thread today, tonight I am going to place an additional Obama-related discretionary sanction on an editor, which among other things limits his appeals of his existing topic ban to one per year (due to repeated near-identical "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" appeals at AN every few months). To avoid a Catch-22, I guess there should probably be a route for him to appeal the limitation on his ability to appeal, at least once. Where should I direct him if he chooses to do that (which I am fairly certain he will)? AE? BASC? or is that only for site-wide bans? I'm assuming lack of objection at an AN thread doesn't give me the power to silence someone with no recourse... -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have violated 1RR at Allar, Jerusalem by moving the page back to its original title twice in 24 hours. Should I undo my last page move? Advice would be appreciated. Tiamut talk 08:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.
Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from current or former admins active at AE, of course, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.
The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about procedure: according to arbitration policy, four net accept votes, or accept votes from an "absolute majority" of arbitrators, are required to open a case. What does "absolute majority" mean here (the linked article isn't clear):
Thanks, TotientDragooned ( talk) 22:55, 23 May 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.
Just a small clarification requested about preliminary injunctions passed before the start of a case, such as this one. If the Committee ultimately votes to not accept the case, does the injunction cease to have force like it would if a case were opened and closed? NW ( Talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If the case ends up being declined, then it's a motion that — theorically — remains until overturned but that quickly becomes moot as no more articles are left to be moved out of flagged protection. — Coren (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this - point me in the right direction if not) All articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict space are currently under a 1-revert per day restriction. There's an article - The Sergeants affair - that deals with events in 1947 (hanging of 2 British mandate soldiers by Irgun) which to me is obviously within the scope of the restriction. An editor has claimed that because Israel only declared independence in 1948, that article is not subject to the restriction (and by implication, neither do any articles that deal with events prior to May 1948). I think that can't be right, but perhaps I'm mistaken, so I think some clarification is needed. Red Stone Arsenal ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a request here to Shell Kinney to recuse from the Political activism RfAr filed by Coren, including from any discussion on the ArbCom mailing list as to whether it should be accepted. Could a Committee member advise whether there is a procedure I ought to follow to request recusal? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Further, from my read of the forwarded email thread, it does not appear to me that Shell was acting "in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party"; she seemed to be merely seeking substantiations or clarifications on particular claims put forth in the emails. This is not unreasonable, and is something a neutral party ought to do to assist the parties in clearly communicating and elucidating their concerns, to ensure they are understood; and further, to try and guide the communication towards a mutually-agreeable resolution. Quite the opposite, a party would not be neutral if they accepted the claims or one side as accomplished fact without asking them to back them up with well-delineated examples. In this case, Shell prompted both parties to provide evidence for their claims.
SlimVirgin has asked Shell Kinney to recuse, as suggested by the section of the arbitration policy linked above. As Shell has declined to recuse, SlimVirgin may now "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she desires. – xeno talk 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (cross-posted from User talk:Shell Kinney)
When this email exchange with Shell occurred, I assumed the situation was attributable to an uninformed Committee member who weighed in aggressively without having read the evidence or emails carefully. That happens to the best of us, so I was willing to be privately disgusted then drop it.
But if the ArbCom as a whole is saying the exchange presents no grounds for Shell's recusal, and insufficient concern about Cirt's editing to proceed with a case (two separate issues), then I'm almost speechless. Both Shell and I forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Committee. In my version, I summarized the key issues at the top. If that summary didn't sink in, we have a serious problem here.
What I would ask now is for someone from the Commitee to explain to me, by email, why this issue is not regarded as (a) important enough to proceed with the case; and (b) important enough to require Shell's recusal from it. If they can persuade me that my view of this is wrong, and I am open to persuasion, I'll drop it. Otherwise, I would like a sanity check from uninvolved people. I would like to find an appeals mechanism, perhaps using stewards from another wiki who would agree to read the exchange, so that any appeal does not involve current Committee members. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Gacurr has entitled their statement section "Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Gacurr". Aside from questioning another user about their name, their entire edit history is related to this one article. They appear to have created the account on 6 June 2011 solely for the purpose of editing the article and participating in discussions about the article. The section heading seems misleading and inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I knew this was a can of worms, but I hadn't realized this was the Bottomless Can of Atomic Worms (of DOOM!) Sorry to plop this on your laps. — Coren (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding WP:DIGWUREN ( Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be applicable to an editor who at a policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding EE editors (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country", linking expired ARBCOM cases to back the claim that "many Slavic editors are biased, as the XYZ case proves", and so on. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
RE: The Nabla request; In Part "A" of the Alternate Motion, I noticed the wording as: "While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping". It caught my eye due to Risker's sage advice that all admin's make note of it. What I was wondering was, and note that I was strongly in favor of not desysop in this case, .. the question comes to mind that "block" would be stronger than "desysop". That is to say:
I only say this because I recall that on a very rare occasion or two, an administrator's account was found to be compromised. I believe someone other than the original editor came into the knowledge of how to log on as that admin. I know it's really, really nit-picking ... but hey, how often does anyone get a chance to point out a possible better wording up here. :) .. cheers and best to all. — Ched : ? 04:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Is John Vandenberg accepting Cults, or conditionally accepting a different arbitration? His is counted as an 'accept' in the heading, but is that clearly what he is saying? Jd2718 ( talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a general question - if there is a better place to post this I'd be happy to move it.
While the ArbCom naturally takes a flexible approach to such issues, it's my impression that evidence more than one year old is considered stale. The committee is concerned with resolving ongoing, current problems rather than older transgressions. Further, evidence that has already been presented in previous ArbCom cases has probably been considered and addressed, and so is not necessary to review again. Of course, extraordinary issues can require IAR approaches, but is this roughly correct as a guide for editors assembling evidence? Will Beback talk 21:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidence more than a certain time old (whether it be a few months or a year or whatever) is generally too stale for us to act on (just as it would be too stale for, say, a community discussion on AN to act on) unless the problems revealed in the evidence are exceptionally severe, or unless the evidence ties into more recent problems. For example, evidence that User:A engaged in Bad Behavior X two years ago would usually be unimportant if User:A has behaved well since then; on the other hand, if there is an allegation that User:A did X yesterday, evidence that he has been doing the same thing for a long time could well make a difference. This is more or less handled on a common-sense basis. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle ( talk · contribs) quotes a phrase out of the Article titles policy that he added about 18 hours before he quoted his addition in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Born2cycle.27s_response_to_Newyorkbrad. I saw the change at the time and thought it a little odd, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or another (and thus have not reverted it). However, it is IMO not the best practice to make a significant change to a policy and then quote it as if it had always been part of the policy. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If you can't explain what is substantively wrong or "unacceptable" or "not an OK tactic" with the specific changes I made, then you must be talking about appearances, and I couldn't care less about that. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I accept that I'm controversial - I believe this is because I pursue (mostly, by far, by trying to persuade others in discussion) what I believe best improves the encyclopedia, often with little regard to the popularity of whatever it is I'm advocating. For an active example see Talk:Climategate. As a result, I'm perhaps not as well liked as I might be if I wasn't so. C'est la vie. Another ramification of may approach is that when I do make edits, they are probably scrutinized more critically than they would be otherwise, and I'm reverted more often than I would be otherwise.
If you look at the recent reverts of my edits at WP:AT you'll see something very typical. I made an edit, someone reverts because, as far as I can tell, it was me that made the edit, I request for an explanation on the talk page, and there is none. Another example is when I propose a change on the talk page, someone objects to the proposed change with an objection to existing wording that isn't affected by the proposal, rather than to the wording I'm proposing to change [33]. When I point this out do they retract their objection to the proposal since their supposed reason to object is irrelevant? Of course not. So, yeah, I too would not be surprised to learn that I'm the most reverted editor at WP:AT. But if you want to hold that against me too, whatever. I do what I can. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This change was also made, which might have had an impact on people's reading of NPOV. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 04:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In Sir Fozzie's statement about considering the case, xe asks "to see statements about how much of this dispute is conduct, and how much of the dispute is content." I'm already right near 500 words in my statement; would it be appropriate to answer that question here, instead? Also, Sir Fozzie, are you looking for a few well chosen diffs? Or sections of talk page? My temptation, of course is to say, "Look at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and related archives", but I presume you'd like something more compact that that, at least at this point. A possible starting point is the links in the fourth paragraph of my statement, though those, of course, show isolated instances rather than a broad pattern. I just want a feel for how much info you want now versus during the actual (if accepted) case. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee proposed the following motion:
( edit conflict) Really? All this is going to do is create a higher wall between the Arbs and the rest of the world, oh, and sour people's opinions of ArbCom even more. If your purpose is to prevent socks and SPAs from coming into the process, putting up a wall that keeps out all new users isn't the answer. Adopting a policy that instead say that:
Oh, and if this whole thing is your answer to the Chester Markel affair, I would advise you that if you think that this or any other action you take will stop things like that from happening, you are only fooling yourselves. People with that level of determination to cause disruption will jump though whatever hoops you place in order to cause said disruption. If anything, creating hoops like this will only backfire, because it will mean that when the editor does come to ArbCom, he will be much more of a known entity, and become that much harder to detect as a disruptive SPA. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea; it's elitest, it focuses inappropriately on edit-count, it alienates newer members of the community. Chzz ► 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Instead of putting the burden on the editor with less than the required number of edits to contact ArbCom, one can let the clerk handle that part. So, if a new editor starts to participate in an ArbCom case, the clerk notifies ArbCom and then ArbCom looks into this and takes whatever action is necessary (e.g. checkuser tests and then approval or not based on that). For other editors the same action can also be taken, but only if some red flags are raised. In case of new editors, as a rule, ArbCom is always notified. Count Iblis ( talk) 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This isn't an onerous requirement for a well-intended contributor, but it insures that any "new" editor receives minimal scrutiny. — Coren (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
During the case, the identities may become clear, but participants are not allowed to out themselves or others. The involved editors always have to be refered to in the third person. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.
That no editor with less than 1000 750 edits may give evidence or may make workshop proposals unless they (i) are either a party to the relevant case or (ii) have been expressly authorised by an arbitrator to give evidence or make workshop proposals by the Arbitration Committee.
I was under the impression that any transgression of the rules defined by Wikipedia's principles and guidelines at an ARBPIA page is by definition an ARBPIA violation. But even more minimally: I/P-banned editors are allowed to edit I/P articles as long as their edits don't involve the conflict in any way, correct? In other words, an I/P-banned editor wouldn't be allowed to remove content from an I/P BLP where that content has implications vis-a-vis the conflict; and similarly, an I/P-banned editor wouldn't be allowed to reference an anti-Zionist advocacy site, because anti-Zionism is a feature of the I/P conflict. I'm only inquiring as to the scope of the discretionary sanctions, not soliciting comment on any of the specific incidents currently being debated at AE.— Biosketch ( talk) 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, these may be slightly ignorant but at least to me they make sense, so some help would be appreciated:
Cheers. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the best person to answer these questions, since arbitrators aren't usually very active on AE, but maybe I'm the first one to see to some of them, so—:
Ok, I've looked at this some more and I am still confused. The template for filing AE request is supposedly here: [38]. I made some changes there. Best as I can tell, this has had no effect what so ever on what actually appears at the AE page. Is it this page that needs to be changed? Why are there two of them? Which one is the "real" page? Why is half of the /preload page unavailable for editing (and where is the part that is nonavailable?) What is going on here? Where are the talk pages for these things? This seems to be all over place and nobody has a clue what's going on. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The use of abstention in arbitrator voting has been causing elements of arbitration cases and motions to technically pass or fail while the abstain section contains many arbitrator votes consisting of comments heavily leaning for or against. The Arbitration Committee needs to review its use of abstention in order to ensure that the committee position on an issue is clear and that they have the requisite support to provide legitimacy for that position. Initiating arbitrator: John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The solution might be to have some fraction of arbs considered quorum (as you suggested), but that would make vote counting even more complicated than it ends up now with abstentions. I'm not sure there is a better solution than "try to use abstentions sparingly". — Coren (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like to make a clerk motion that the Committee adopt one consistent form of alternate numbering; this 3a/5.1 stuff isn't going to fly ;-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Failed motions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Motion 1That Arbitration Committee members should not use abstain votes as a vehicle for comment.
Motion 2That where Arbitration Committee members make comments to accompany abstain votes, the comments should be limited to providing a rationale for the abstention (for instance, to recuse on a particular aspect of a case).
Motion 3A motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, with the exception of a motion to close an arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.
Motion 3aA motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.
Motion 4A proposal made as part of a proposed decision will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.
Motion 5That a section entitled "Not voting" be used in addition to 'Abstain'; for arbitrators to comment or signify that they have reviewed the item and do not wish to alter the voting count or calculation method.
|
That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.
Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:05, 19 August 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 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi. A quick question. In listing "involved parties" in an arbcom about an editor's behavior at an AfD and related matters, is it sufficient to contact all the editors who discussed his behavior with him? Where there was also a follow-up AN/I, is it sufficient to copy the closer of the AN/I (or should I leave word of the arb case at the AN/I? Or are the commenters at the AN/I who were not involved with his behavior also considered "invloved parties" requiring contact?) Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have noted for some time that the Committee requests page has a somewhat out-of-control Table of Contents. I believe greater clarity would be achieved with the Template:TOC limit, which forces the table to list only level 2 and 3 subheadings. This will really help navigation. I am going to WP:BOLD and insert it, but if anyone is opposed, feel free to revert. — Finn Casey * * * 01:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Per the above comment, perhaps the first modification was excessive. The Template:TOC limit can be modified to suppress only certain level headings. I will implement the next level of permissiveness, TOC-4. To summarize our options:
The goal is to balance the ability to find specific sections with the need for concise clarity (that is, after all, the purpose of a table of contents). The more detail that is included, the harder it becomes to wade through all the sub-sub-sub headings to find the right one. Opinions regarding the preferred method are welcome. — Finn Casey * * * 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to use the template for filing an arbcom enforcement request, but it doesn't format. Can someone explain how to do it correctly? Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
To elaborate on this suggestion, one of the most troublesome things to deal with as a mentor are occasions when the mentoree ventures out on their own and takes action that is provocative and objectionable but probably sub-blockable. I wish you had come to me first is a conversation I've had many times with most of my mentorees, and probably Mattisse's mentors have had with her too. No mentor likes to engage in damage control because the action is usually right on the edge. So unless the mentor's criticism is both stern and public the mentor is liable to get accused of enabling bad behavior; often the situation isn't quite black and white.
Earlier this year certain members of the Committee tried to initiate a version of "empowered" mentorship that was basically reactive. That model was unworkable. Mentorship itself as an arbitration remedy seldom succeeds. After the ADD case and this one, perhaps the reason is becoming more clear. It puts the cart before the horse to say that mentorship exists to avoid sanctions. Mentorship actually exists to render sanctions unnecessary. The more visible and politicized a mentorship becomes, the harder it is for that mentorship to succeed.
The screener alternative is not mentorship. Mainly a screener function is to sift wheat from chaff and prevent "drama" before it starts. Instead of I wish you would come to me before you post that the situation becomes You must come to me before you post that. If the screener feels like incorporating mentorship into that model they're free to do so. Principally it saves the the effort of putting out fires, which is a primary cause of mentor burnout.
The main obstacle to be anticipated is the "under the radar" post: subtle context-driven snarks that slip through the screening process. A fair and reasonable solution could probably deal with that, along with provisions for what would follow if evidence mounts that the screening process is being gamed. Durova 363 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place but I have blocked User:Mccready who currently has a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban]] following this sequence. The discussion follows from prior attempts from other admins at dealing with the topic ban at issue and so the prior conduct may be relevant. The block is for one week, but if it affects the Arbitration request in any way, I will (or anyone else can) unblock him to allow him to speak. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
In the case concerning the Audit Subcomittee I notice that a couple of arbitrators have recused "as a formal matter". What does that mean? Is this typical language when recusing that I've just never picked up on before or does it denote some special characteristic of the recusal? 80.65.247.36 ( talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate I'm a nobody and I apologise if this has already been addressed elsewhere but I can't help noticing recent parallels to the current Giano case. Another arbitrator recently threatened Giano with a block over issues so closely related that... let's face it, it's the same topic and same concerns exactly. In relation to John Vandenberg's comments about arbitrators appearing to act in an official capacity, it's perhaps worth noticing that that arbitrator was acting on behalf of a group (referred to as "us") that at least might reasonably have been taken to mean the committee. "If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour."
Some questions:
217.28.2.130 ( talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Community review and input is requested here. Durova 386 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Per some discussion I found at arb-related pages, I have proposed a modest new policy with regards to how arbitrators should conduct administrators actions. U A 21:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
From his comments and relief, I think Coren may be under the impression that Carcharoth's assurance that no "binding precedent" will be created by this ruling is in some way different to the assurances that no binding precedents are created by any of the other ArbCom rulings either. 217.28.2.130 ( talk) 09:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I am aware you are trying to kill off the discussion about community-initiated admin recall in favour of pretending that RfC/U can somehow compel resignations. I believe that you believe you are pushing for the best outcome that is possible, but I also believe that your approach is doomed. RfC/U cannot force a resignation any more than it can force any other binding outcome. Certainly it would be a high effort-low reward approach for dealing with Arbitrator misconduct. What is needed is a binding Arbitrator Recall mechanism so that the question of whether an Arbitrator retains the trust of the community can be tested... but who knows if we'll ever get one. The 2009 Committee promised one (and did achieve some useful reforms early in its term) so maybe it will happen some day. If we are fortunate, such a recall mechanism could be adapted to administrator recall. At the moment, however, there is no method of forced accountability for arbitrators and only a tenuous one for administrators. And the present ArbCom have justed acted to undermine the notion of administrator accountability. What a notable achievement for the end of the year... the incoming arbitrators must be so grateful to be starting out with the foolish actions of their predecessors and colleagues hanging over their heads. EdChem ( talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(de-indenting for Sanity :)) And I say that the current proceedure (RfC/RfArb) IS an impeachment process. I would assume any arbitrator who screwed up that bad to require a RfC/RfArb would resign as well, so it can be said to exist already. SirFozzie ( talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
User:William M. Connolley has been accused of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Wikipedia to the effect of minimizing the Medieval Warm Period to further an environmental agenda. Where should this be addressed? - Roy Boy 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare is getting out of hand. I ask that an administrator take control of the discussion.
The only questions to be decided at AE, based on Brews ohare's arbitration sanctions, are:
The answer to both questions is, No. However, discussion has spiraled off in other directions. There is now a debate between pure mathematicians and applied mathematicians (those who use the math, such engineers and physicists) about the article's approach; the mathematicians actually disdain the use of sources, among other differences. And this has degenerated into name-calling and questioning one another's good faith and motives. David Tombe's arguments in Brews' support are not helping Brews or the process: Tombe was sanctioned in the same arbitration as Brews (which diminishes his credibility) and his manner is combative. Could an administrator please step in to take control of this melee? Thank you.— Finell 05:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Are outside views possible or how does one go about adding additional parties? While the arbitration case has been opened it only includes his latest dispute and this is in fact a long term issue that has gone on with this editor and involved dozens of other editors. I wouldn't want arbcom to get the wrong impression that the issue is only with the most recent behaviour, so I'd like to add a statement about my interaction with him a year ago to provide context if at all possible.-- Crossmr ( talk) 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'." [1] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The motion now apparently to be approved says that the deletions in question were "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion", that "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." and that "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." It also recommends that an RfC or similar discussion determine "the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".
Many editors, on both sides of the issue, are reading this to say that continuation of mass deletions, without discussion, is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, and that interfering with such deletions is not acceptable, and possibly subject to sanction. This view seems supported by the statement (in voting reasons section) by Coren ( talk · contribs) that "Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory." This view seems opposed by Coren's statement that "the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion[s] have taken place." and by the statement of Shell Kinney ( talk · contribs) (with which two othe arbitrators have indicated agreement) that "as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out."
I note that Scott MacDonald ( talk · contribs) seems to have continued multiple undiscussed deletions up at least 13:12, 21 January 2010, which, unless I'm being fooled by a timezone error, is after the 5th vote for the motion was posted. Although of course the motions has not yet been officially adopted, with nine votes in favor it looks, well, rather likely at the moment. Based on this, and on the history of the issue, and the statements of various admins, it seems to me likely that such deletions will continue as things now stand.
If the ArbCom really wants to have future deletions occur only via some yet to be determined mechanism with consensus support (whether a variant of WP:PROD, a new WP:CSD, a variant of Incubation or some other mechanism) than I think it would be wise to amend its motions, or pass a further motion, to explicitly say that future mass deletions are not acceptable, or under what if any circumstances they would be subject to future sanction. If this is not done, any admin who wishes to continue such deletions can cite the "commended" language and the warning against interference, and argue that in the absence of future interference, deletions will not be "chaotic". In the face of this motion, It would be hard to block for such actions.
I ask the ArbCom hypothetically, if such deletions continue and some admin does block the deletors and that block is brought here as a violation of this ruling, how will you handle the matter?
I ask the ArbCom to at least consider a temporary injunction against future mass deletions, pending community discussion and adoption of some mechanism for handling unsourced BLPs. Such an injunction could include a time limit by which, if no such process is adopted, the floodgates will open, or should I say the drains.
In the absence of any explicit comment by the ArbCom on future deletions, there is IMO less incentive for those favoring deletion to work on a mechanism that balances the competing interests at stake here, and even if adopted, more chance that such a mechanism will fail if any admin feels free to avoid it by unilateral deletion. DES (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally I'm a big fan of WP:DEADLINE... but maybe not this time. How about ArbCom tacks on a clarifier, to wit, "the community needs to put a process (fitting certain parms specified as follows??) in place that gets the job done satisfactorily by date X. Admins are not to do any additional summary deletions until after X. If by X, the process is in place, that is what they will use. If it is not in place by then, the community is reminded that they were required to create one, and the summary deletions may then resume". Make X something reasonable. (2 weeks? a month at the most). Then, having boldly led, get out of the way and let the community organise one that is satisfactory to all concerned. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The lesson out of this is: if trying to change policy, abuse
Wikipedia cornerstone policies to your heart's content, abuse anyone who gets in the way, get enough people on your side, and ArbCom will back you all the way. The decision taken is cowardly and compromised in the extreme and we will see another case, with sanctions, here in a couple of months as the two sides are entrenched.
Orderinchaos 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Placed here so as to not clutter the voting sections even more.
— Coren (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, so hopefully this will reach the ArbCom's attention.
I'd like to request a temporary injunction against User:JBsupreme. Over the past day, even after being added to this case, he has been tagging dozens of BLPs with {{ prod}}, along with an insistence that the prod not be removed ( example). This is contrary to prod's purpose, and is about the nearest thing to "rogue deletions" that a non-admin can do. This is just pouring that much more gasoline on the flames of this case, and I see no sign that he will stop unless someone of authority steps in and tells him to.
Thanks.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'." [3] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The motion now apparently to be approved says that the deletions in question were "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion", that "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." and that "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." It also recommends that an RfC or similar discussion determine "the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".
Many editors, on both sides of the issue, are reading this to say that continuation of mass deletions, without discussion, is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, and that interfering with such deletions is not acceptable, and possibly subject to sanction. This view seems supported by the statement (in voting reasons section) by Coren ( talk · contribs) that "Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory." This view seems opposed by Coren's statement that "the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion[s] have taken place." and by the statement of Shell Kinney ( talk · contribs) (with which two othe arbitrators have indicated agreement) that "as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out."
I note that Scott MacDonald ( talk · contribs) seems to have continued multiple undiscussed deletions up at least 13:12, 21 January 2010, which, unless I'm being fooled by a timezone error, is after the 5th vote for the motion was posted. Although of course the motions has not yet been officially adopted, with nine votes in favor it looks, well, rather likely at the moment. Based on this, and on the history of the issue, and the statements of various admins, it seems to me likely that such deletions will continue as things now stand.
If the ArbCom really wants to have future deletions occur only via some yet to be determined mechanism with consensus support (whether a variant of WP:PROD, a new WP:CSD, a variant of Incubation or some other mechanism) than I think it would be wise to amend its motions, or pass a further motion, to explicitly say that future mass deletions are not acceptable, or under what if any circumstances they would be subject to future sanction. If this is not done, any admin who wishes to continue such deletions can cite the "commended" language and the warning against interference, and argue that in the absence of future interference, deletions will not be "chaotic". In the face of this motion, It would be hard to block for such actions.
I ask the ArbCom hypothetically, if such deletions continue and some admin does block the deletors and that block is brought here as a violation of this ruling, how will you handle the matter?
I ask the ArbCom to at least consider a temporary injunction against future mass deletions, pending community discussion and adoption of some mechanism for handling unsourced BLPs. Such an injunction could include a time limit by which, if no such process is adopted, the floodgates will open, or should I say the drains.
In the absence of any explicit comment by the ArbCom on future deletions, there is IMO less incentive for those favoring deletion to work on a mechanism that balances the competing interests at stake here, and even if adopted, more chance that such a mechanism will fail if any admin feels free to avoid it by unilateral deletion. DES (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally I'm a big fan of WP:DEADLINE... but maybe not this time. How about ArbCom tacks on a clarifier, to wit, "the community needs to put a process (fitting certain parms specified as follows??) in place that gets the job done satisfactorily by date X. Admins are not to do any additional summary deletions until after X. If by X, the process is in place, that is what they will use. If it is not in place by then, the community is reminded that they were required to create one, and the summary deletions may then resume". Make X something reasonable. (2 weeks? a month at the most). Then, having boldly led, get out of the way and let the community organise one that is satisfactory to all concerned. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The lesson out of this is: if trying to change policy, abuse
Wikipedia cornerstone policies to your heart's content, abuse anyone who gets in the way, get enough people on your side, and ArbCom will back you all the way. The decision taken is cowardly and compromised in the extreme and we will see another case, with sanctions, here in a couple of months as the two sides are entrenched.
Orderinchaos 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, so hopefully this will reach the ArbCom's attention.
I'd like to request a temporary injunction against User:JBsupreme. Over the past day, even after being added to this case, he has been tagging dozens of BLPs with {{ prod}}, along with an insistence that the prod not be removed ( example). This is contrary to prod's purpose, and is about the nearest thing to "rogue deletions" that a non-admin can do. This is just pouring that much more gasoline on the flames of this case, and I see no sign that he will stop unless someone of authority steps in and tells him to.
Thanks.-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Placed here so as to not clutter the voting sections even more.
— Coren (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It's been discussed a bit, but that BLP motion is something that arbcom should look at (even if arbcom made the motion). What kind of process do we have to look into it? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we have a block template customized to blocks that are placed as a result of arbitration enforcement, and that links to the special conditions under which such a block can be overturned ? Right now an admin responding to an unblock request may not realize, (a) that the block was a result of AE unless they see the block edit-summary, (2) that the block should not be overturned simply on their own discretion. Of course, these wouldn't be an issue, if the admin followed good practice and consulted with the blocking admin, but we should at least attempt to make the applicable policies as accessible as possible. Thoughts ? Abecedare ( talk) 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
To prevent people from incorrectly filing cases at this page, as happened recently, I created an editnotice here. Feel free to improve it. Ucucha 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
After having a brief discussion with Sandstein [5], I would like to ask: Could Russavia file his request in light of his editing restriction: [6]? Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits.
I'm accused of posting "aggressive" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page. [7] [8]
Jzg then makes an accusation that, "It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. [5] - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs." This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, and edits, in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here [9], it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived [10] - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing. [11] I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists.
As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Wikipedia. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom. [12]. To the argument that Wikipedia had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term. [13]
My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition [14] [15] of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would not be: a review of climate science. [16] Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue.
I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. [17] My criticism of Lambert [18] & Quiggin [19] has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber". [20] [21] [22] There is no grey area there either. One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Wikipedia. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a WP:RS regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this.
Lambert & Quiggin continue even now to display poor and biased judgement with regards to the BLP subjects noted throughout these discussions. In Lambert's very last exchange here at Wikipedia he states that the Lott article has seen a number of "favorable" edits from "Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" [ [23]] Lambert makes a number of serious charges there against a non-wikipedian he paints a puppet master. Think about this. An undergraduate student said, "Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo" in a screed largely devoted to criticizing the BB coach. Which Tim Lambert then regurgitated and misquoted as unequivocal fact on Wikipedia as, "...strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" - while notably labeling a civilian, university department chair, non-project participant as a Wikipedia sock-master. This is precisely the method, and the problem, when one spends ones days engaged in character assassination and ones nights writing your target's BLP's. It's the problem here.
Quiggin, also in his very last edit at Wikipedia, has also apparently decided to not even wait until the proceedings finish to completely break his assurances made directly to Jimbo, Jzg and the community not to edit the mainpage of his enemies on Wikipedia. [24] Lindzen is named often, and prominently throughout these discussions, Jzg even listed that specific BLP in his original complaint against Quiggin.
I have not discussed nor suggested any action, I simply made my concerns known. This started from my defending The Times as a reliable source and has been made into Drama by Jzg, unnecessarily. I've tackled a tough subject involving an editor with close associations here, but my conduct has been civil, reasonable and well supported. That shooting the messenger has progressed to this level is unsettling. 99.135.173.194 ( talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I have copied this over for you
mark nutley (
talk) 18:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Administrators involved in Arbitration Enforcement, or interested in participating, are encouraged to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to better streamline and coordinate enforcement actions. NW ( Talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I was blocked for 24 hours for violating an interaction ban I was part is. The issue is that I didn't violate it and I want to appeal for this blocked to be removed from my log of blocks. I don't exactly sure where and how I should do it. I already contacted ArbCom via e-mail during my blocked(about few hours ago, yet didn't get any response-so I guess it is possible to post it here instead). I have all diffs and etc ready-jusy need help in filling the request.
Thanks-- Gilisa ( talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can closed cases have their probations reactivated? Or the same restrictions re-applied even if the case has closed? Or can an admin simply enforce them without re-opening the case? User in question is doing it again. SGGH ping! 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Rvcx has cherry picked anti-Mathsci dispute resolution steps, and has omitted other important steps that have been taken, such as
I think that omitting other important steps is not the best way to start an arbitration process. I would suggest listing them in chronological order. Wapondaponda ( talk) 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any real dispute or issue with anyone regarding the Kosovo article. That said, before I unintentionally stir up a hornets nest, what are the reasonable parameters in which we may develop the lead section of the Kosovo article as it relates to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which superseded the earlier Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo? I ask, because earlier today I made this edit, which I don't think is controversial (although I did employ some poor proof reading...). The edit was pretty quickly rolled back, but because of the combination of the ArbCom rulings as well as the generally anti-encyclopedic editors who dominate all such articles, I can't tell if it is even worth trying to make an attempt at building the content. Thoughts? There's not a lot of room to do any meaningful work, and as someone who was initially drawn to Wikipedia years ago because of my amateur interest in history, I must admit that it's frustrating to see Wikipedia 2010 in such a creatively stagnant straight jacket. The very fact that something can be deemed a "controversial" edit purely on grounds of opinion is a little demoralizing. Am I really way off target here? Hiberniantears ( talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No I am not alone - Read the discussion page, others agree with me....but enough of that here. 84.203.72.8 ( talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
As clarification, I would like to point out that as an editor, one's bias should be entirely suppressed. This may sound slightly blunt, but the very point of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to be an exercise in objectivity, but this is often conflated with being an exercise in balancing one side's "truth" against another's. That's ultimately what I'm inquiring about. What are the parameters in which we can pursue objectivity at the expense of balance? As it stands now, we have abandoned entire subject areas with vast potential to some sort of intellectual Green Line. Hiberniantears ( talk) 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The Template-note is intended as an NPOV status description for inclusion in all Kosovo-related articles. It describes the level of international recognition/non-recongition of Kosovo-statehood internationally. There is an argument about whether or how states that are not UN members should be counted in the Template. User Bazonka and others argue that only those non-UN member states that recognise Kosovo should be counted. I and others disagree and say that surely all non-UN member states should be counted or none at all? The help of arbitrators would be appreciated. A link to the current vote is above and the discussion page generally is above. Thanks for taking some time to look into this. 84.203.72.8 ( talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that each of the subheadings parenthetically include the name of the case. Otherwise, it is unclear on our watchlists and in the page history which case is being discussed. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
With regard to my editing restriction, can I comment about users like here or edit old Russian history like here? I had this talk with Carcharoth and he suggested to ask at WP:AE if needed. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 21:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope it's okay if before I respond I can get clarification. Will wrote this: "The recent ArbCom case noted several principles, including findings COI and the use of sources. It directed editors to review those findings and avoid recurring problems." It doesn't seem clear to me, and I believe that it would suggest to a reader that there was a formal finding of fact regarding conflict of interest. I have long acknowledged having a conflict of interest, and Arbcom did articulate a principle regarding COI that advises caution (while also noting that stating the a principle doesn't mean there was a finding of fact), but I don't see there was any actual finding of fact in that regard. Could this sentence be clarified? Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, Will says this: "ArbCom finding that COI has been a problem with this topic (as well as findings on sourcing and neutrality), the editor does not seem to be able to separate his role in the movement from his role as a Wikipedia editor." I don't see those things in the findings of fact. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement, the "Principles" include sections on:
Then the "Remedies" includes this item:
It is my belief that TimidGuy has not conducted himself in full compliance with those principles. Another remedy is:
I consider this a sufficiently serious violation of the editorial process to merit a formal warning. Will Beback talk 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that TG is saying that the sentence below, included in your complaint, is inaccurate and misleading, since it states that there were "findings COI", when if fact there were no such "findings", only general principles which applied to all parties, as you have made clear in your post above. Perhaps you might consider rectifying this error.
Give the acrimonious turn this took, and given Everyking's pretty unreserved undertaking going forward, I have withdrawn this as moot. Can I suggest everyone would be served best were it to be speedy closed, and let the record show that happily Everyking is "released on his own parole".-- Scott Mac 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the AE enforcement process so I apologize if I am asking questions that are too basic. Are there any standing editing restrictions, such as perhaps general one-revert restrictions or something like that, related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If yes, is there some appropriate tag that could be placed at the talk page of affected articles? I just came across this particular article, Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement, which seems to have been the subject of edit warring in the past, and where one of the editors involved in that edit warring User:GeneralChoomin (who also had vandalized the article back in April [29] and was blocked for disruption back then), has returned and CSD tagged the article [30]. I declined the speedy and added a couple of refs. I am not particularly interested in the subject of the article, but if there are any standing arbitration rulings relevant there, they probably need to be mentioned at the article's talk page in some way. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there some existing ArbCom ruling with instructions or advise to the effect that one administrators' noticeboard should not overrule a decision taken and recorded on another administrators' noticeboard, without consulting the later board? -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sidenote: This website is definitely getting more complicated than any one person can keep track of. I am not sure whether I find it amusing or alarming that I am one of the arbitrators, have been an administrator for three and one-half years, and it now turns out that there's an entire noticeboard (albeit a relatively new one) that I never even heard of before. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello TS. I saw your recent filing at AE. Neither of these editors has been officially warned about discretionary sanctions yet. Per this old version of your Notices page I see that you used to be the main person leaving CC notices. The only notice for a person I have seen anyone leave since the CC case was closed is this one for Ed Poor. That notice comes across as indicating misbehavior. Is there no way to provide a 'neutral' notice? In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Remedies I see there is still a notice requirement. Your old wording for the notices you left was fairly non-judgmental, and I hope a new notice can be developed in a similar vein. Are you willing to propose any wording for this? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I do think it's better not to use any formal notices at all until there is problem behavior, and then to leave the task to a neutral admin. For the purpose of notification, I'm currently in the process of replacing all the old probation notices on article talk pages with equivalent general sanctions notices that point to the wording of the remedy in the arbitration final decision. For an example, check out the one at talk:global warming.
Now some editors have even complained that notices on article talk pages are intimidating, but I think they're necessary. If an editor seems to be acting in an overly aggressive way or is otherwise making it hard for other editors, a polite informal word or two can be left on his user talk page informing him of the sanctions and pointing at the talk page notice, and hopefully he won't take it amiss. Tasty monster (= TS ) 17:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A template warning for this also exists. For Climate Change, it would be {{ subst:uw-sanctions|cc}}. NW ( Talk) 19:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am just curious, what's the time after which amendment/clarification requests are archived due to inactivity? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Preamble: This post is NOT about WMC, his case simply provides the example; this post is about AE block appeals in general. I post this preamble to answer in advance why (a) I didn't post to user talk:WGFinley (though I will post a link to here from there) and (b) this is not appealing (or whatever) on WMC's behalf. PLEASE can we keep this discussion on-topic, and not divert into a discussion of WMC. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I note the closure of the WMC appeal and the subsequent post from WGFinley to WMC's talk page: "There being no consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn your block I have closed your AE appeal accordingly". I further note the relevant ArbCom motion which states that "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" is required for reversing an AE block. I am wondering whether standard AE practice of having an uninvolved administrators section is effectively devaluing the input of uninvolved non-administrator editors in the consideration of appeals. Is evaluation of appeals regularly considering primarily or only the input of administraors? Further, the ArbCom motion specifically nominates WP:AN and WP:ANI as appropriate community discussion noticeboards for appeal of AE blocks, so is it appropriate that such block appeals tend to be re-directed to AE? Should the location of a block appeal be the choice of the blocked editor? Arbitrator comments on the 2010 motion (and earlier comment, IIRC) has been appreciative of the efforts of the administrators who work in AE, but has also noted that much of the community at large stays away from AE - consequently, I wonder whether the wording chosen in the motion indicates the desirability of having appeals brought before a wider audience than just the AE regulars. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to revdel a repeated addition of personal information and am getting a permission denied / already applied error. When I check from my account (administrator) it shows as there, not revdel'ed. When I check as an IP there are no visible page history versions newer than August.
Am I confused, did I do something horribly wrong, ??
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I sent an email last week, when do you think I should start hearing something back? 96.50.86.207 ( talk) 22:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added another user to the AE request on Littleolive oil with further difs. Is it okay in this format or should another AE be opened? Had ask here [32] prior. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not knowing exactly where to place this on the main page itself. Anyway, as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions#Ottava Rima - Conditions for return to editing, the editor in question would be allowed to return to editing upon completion of the one year ban and upon resolution of what restrictions, if any, the editor would be placed under subsequent to the end of the ban. It was indicated there that there might be some input from the community, and I would favor the possibility of such community input, if such is acceptable to the members of the ArbCom. John Carter ( talk) 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I created this
It will be useful! All best! -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
re: Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
NB; this is now an *undo* request; see comment below; Jack Merridew 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please note this is here via (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)
Template talk:Sanction enforcement request#Admin only discussion section has ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of admin-only sections. Currently there is not wide engagment with the broader editting community. (I.e. I'm getting killed in the debate.) I'm placing this notice here to ensure that micro-local consensus reflects broader consensus, and to stimulate further discussion.
Aaron Brenneman (
talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I can search the archives of this talk page using the handy field at the top. I'd like to search the actual "Arbitration Requests for amendment". Can somebody implement a similar function please? Lightmouse ( talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to clarify that in my understanding pasting the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} to the previous section concerned with enforcement will produce all the relevant entries now seen in appeals headed by
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Koakhtzvigad, i.e.
Appealing user
Sanction being appealed In accordance with WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning you etc.
Administrator imposing the sanction
I'm not sure that this is the right place for this observation, and it may have been discussed elsewhere before, but what this is not is a request for action or enforcement at the article I'm going to use as an example, as it appears that the edit war there may have ceased for the time being and the disputants may be at least somewhat open to WP:DR.
I want to question the wisdom of using 1RR for everyone editing at an article or in a subject matter such as has been done at WP:ARBPIA, at least not without an addition which says that what is really restricted is edit warring, broadly construed. That is, for example, I think the first and third bullet point of {{ Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} ought to read:
It appears to me, on admittedly scant evidence, is that the 1RR restriction on an entire article merely encourages tit–for–tat edit warring with reverts, in effect, 24 hours and 1 second apart. (I don't think the same is necessarily true when individual editors are restricted, though I can see it happening in some cases there, too.) For an example see Refaat Al-Gammal. With the restrictions written the way they are, edit warring of this nature can only be taken to the usual edit warring channels, rather than be immediately sanctioned.
FWIW and best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding arbitration case "Noleander": should I add a statement now? Or is the case in an "accept or not" phase, and I should wait until it is formally accepted? I read the arbitration instructions, and it sounds like there will be an Evidence subpage created, and maybe I should wait for that to get created and put my statement there? (Apologies if this is a bone-headed question, but I've never participated in an arbitration before). -- Noleander ( talk) 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Barring objections in the AN thread today, tonight I am going to place an additional Obama-related discretionary sanction on an editor, which among other things limits his appeals of his existing topic ban to one per year (due to repeated near-identical "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" appeals at AN every few months). To avoid a Catch-22, I guess there should probably be a route for him to appeal the limitation on his ability to appeal, at least once. Where should I direct him if he chooses to do that (which I am fairly certain he will)? AE? BASC? or is that only for site-wide bans? I'm assuming lack of objection at an AN thread doesn't give me the power to silence someone with no recourse... -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have violated 1RR at Allar, Jerusalem by moving the page back to its original title twice in 24 hours. Should I undo my last page move? Advice would be appreciated. Tiamut talk 08:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.
Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from current or former admins active at AE, of course, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.
The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass ( talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a question about procedure: according to arbitration policy, four net accept votes, or accept votes from an "absolute majority" of arbitrators, are required to open a case. What does "absolute majority" mean here (the linked article isn't clear):
Thanks, TotientDragooned ( talk) 22:55, 23 May 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.
Just a small clarification requested about preliminary injunctions passed before the start of a case, such as this one. If the Committee ultimately votes to not accept the case, does the injunction cease to have force like it would if a case were opened and closed? NW ( Talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
If the case ends up being declined, then it's a motion that — theorically — remains until overturned but that quickly becomes moot as no more articles are left to be moved out of flagged protection. — Coren (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this - point me in the right direction if not) All articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict space are currently under a 1-revert per day restriction. There's an article - The Sergeants affair - that deals with events in 1947 (hanging of 2 British mandate soldiers by Irgun) which to me is obviously within the scope of the restriction. An editor has claimed that because Israel only declared independence in 1948, that article is not subject to the restriction (and by implication, neither do any articles that deal with events prior to May 1948). I think that can't be right, but perhaps I'm mistaken, so I think some clarification is needed. Red Stone Arsenal ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a request here to Shell Kinney to recuse from the Political activism RfAr filed by Coren, including from any discussion on the ArbCom mailing list as to whether it should be accepted. Could a Committee member advise whether there is a procedure I ought to follow to request recusal? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Further, from my read of the forwarded email thread, it does not appear to me that Shell was acting "in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party"; she seemed to be merely seeking substantiations or clarifications on particular claims put forth in the emails. This is not unreasonable, and is something a neutral party ought to do to assist the parties in clearly communicating and elucidating their concerns, to ensure they are understood; and further, to try and guide the communication towards a mutually-agreeable resolution. Quite the opposite, a party would not be neutral if they accepted the claims or one side as accomplished fact without asking them to back them up with well-delineated examples. In this case, Shell prompted both parties to provide evidence for their claims.
SlimVirgin has asked Shell Kinney to recuse, as suggested by the section of the arbitration policy linked above. As Shell has declined to recuse, SlimVirgin may now "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she desires. – xeno talk 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (cross-posted from User talk:Shell Kinney)
When this email exchange with Shell occurred, I assumed the situation was attributable to an uninformed Committee member who weighed in aggressively without having read the evidence or emails carefully. That happens to the best of us, so I was willing to be privately disgusted then drop it.
But if the ArbCom as a whole is saying the exchange presents no grounds for Shell's recusal, and insufficient concern about Cirt's editing to proceed with a case (two separate issues), then I'm almost speechless. Both Shell and I forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Committee. In my version, I summarized the key issues at the top. If that summary didn't sink in, we have a serious problem here.
What I would ask now is for someone from the Commitee to explain to me, by email, why this issue is not regarded as (a) important enough to proceed with the case; and (b) important enough to require Shell's recusal from it. If they can persuade me that my view of this is wrong, and I am open to persuasion, I'll drop it. Otherwise, I would like a sanity check from uninvolved people. I would like to find an appeals mechanism, perhaps using stewards from another wiki who would agree to read the exchange, so that any appeal does not involve current Committee members. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Gacurr has entitled their statement section "Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Gacurr". Aside from questioning another user about their name, their entire edit history is related to this one article. They appear to have created the account on 6 June 2011 solely for the purpose of editing the article and participating in discussions about the article. The section heading seems misleading and inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I knew this was a can of worms, but I hadn't realized this was the Bottomless Can of Atomic Worms (of DOOM!) Sorry to plop this on your laps. — Coren (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding WP:DIGWUREN ( Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be applicable to an editor who at a policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding EE editors (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country", linking expired ARBCOM cases to back the claim that "many Slavic editors are biased, as the XYZ case proves", and so on. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
RE: The Nabla request; In Part "A" of the Alternate Motion, I noticed the wording as: "While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping". It caught my eye due to Risker's sage advice that all admin's make note of it. What I was wondering was, and note that I was strongly in favor of not desysop in this case, .. the question comes to mind that "block" would be stronger than "desysop". That is to say:
I only say this because I recall that on a very rare occasion or two, an administrator's account was found to be compromised. I believe someone other than the original editor came into the knowledge of how to log on as that admin. I know it's really, really nit-picking ... but hey, how often does anyone get a chance to point out a possible better wording up here. :) .. cheers and best to all. — Ched : ? 04:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Is John Vandenberg accepting Cults, or conditionally accepting a different arbitration? His is counted as an 'accept' in the heading, but is that clearly what he is saying? Jd2718 ( talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a general question - if there is a better place to post this I'd be happy to move it.
While the ArbCom naturally takes a flexible approach to such issues, it's my impression that evidence more than one year old is considered stale. The committee is concerned with resolving ongoing, current problems rather than older transgressions. Further, evidence that has already been presented in previous ArbCom cases has probably been considered and addressed, and so is not necessary to review again. Of course, extraordinary issues can require IAR approaches, but is this roughly correct as a guide for editors assembling evidence? Will Beback talk 21:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidence more than a certain time old (whether it be a few months or a year or whatever) is generally too stale for us to act on (just as it would be too stale for, say, a community discussion on AN to act on) unless the problems revealed in the evidence are exceptionally severe, or unless the evidence ties into more recent problems. For example, evidence that User:A engaged in Bad Behavior X two years ago would usually be unimportant if User:A has behaved well since then; on the other hand, if there is an allegation that User:A did X yesterday, evidence that he has been doing the same thing for a long time could well make a difference. This is more or less handled on a common-sense basis. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle ( talk · contribs) quotes a phrase out of the Article titles policy that he added about 18 hours before he quoted his addition in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Born2cycle.27s_response_to_Newyorkbrad. I saw the change at the time and thought it a little odd, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or another (and thus have not reverted it). However, it is IMO not the best practice to make a significant change to a policy and then quote it as if it had always been part of the policy. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If you can't explain what is substantively wrong or "unacceptable" or "not an OK tactic" with the specific changes I made, then you must be talking about appearances, and I couldn't care less about that. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I accept that I'm controversial - I believe this is because I pursue (mostly, by far, by trying to persuade others in discussion) what I believe best improves the encyclopedia, often with little regard to the popularity of whatever it is I'm advocating. For an active example see Talk:Climategate. As a result, I'm perhaps not as well liked as I might be if I wasn't so. C'est la vie. Another ramification of may approach is that when I do make edits, they are probably scrutinized more critically than they would be otherwise, and I'm reverted more often than I would be otherwise.
If you look at the recent reverts of my edits at WP:AT you'll see something very typical. I made an edit, someone reverts because, as far as I can tell, it was me that made the edit, I request for an explanation on the talk page, and there is none. Another example is when I propose a change on the talk page, someone objects to the proposed change with an objection to existing wording that isn't affected by the proposal, rather than to the wording I'm proposing to change [33]. When I point this out do they retract their objection to the proposal since their supposed reason to object is irrelevant? Of course not. So, yeah, I too would not be surprised to learn that I'm the most reverted editor at WP:AT. But if you want to hold that against me too, whatever. I do what I can. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This change was also made, which might have had an impact on people's reading of NPOV. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 04:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
In Sir Fozzie's statement about considering the case, xe asks "to see statements about how much of this dispute is conduct, and how much of the dispute is content." I'm already right near 500 words in my statement; would it be appropriate to answer that question here, instead? Also, Sir Fozzie, are you looking for a few well chosen diffs? Or sections of talk page? My temptation, of course is to say, "Look at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and related archives", but I presume you'd like something more compact that that, at least at this point. A possible starting point is the links in the fourth paragraph of my statement, though those, of course, show isolated instances rather than a broad pattern. I just want a feel for how much info you want now versus during the actual (if accepted) case. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee proposed the following motion:
( edit conflict) Really? All this is going to do is create a higher wall between the Arbs and the rest of the world, oh, and sour people's opinions of ArbCom even more. If your purpose is to prevent socks and SPAs from coming into the process, putting up a wall that keeps out all new users isn't the answer. Adopting a policy that instead say that:
Oh, and if this whole thing is your answer to the Chester Markel affair, I would advise you that if you think that this or any other action you take will stop things like that from happening, you are only fooling yourselves. People with that level of determination to cause disruption will jump though whatever hoops you place in order to cause said disruption. If anything, creating hoops like this will only backfire, because it will mean that when the editor does come to ArbCom, he will be much more of a known entity, and become that much harder to detect as a disruptive SPA. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea; it's elitest, it focuses inappropriately on edit-count, it alienates newer members of the community. Chzz ► 21:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Instead of putting the burden on the editor with less than the required number of edits to contact ArbCom, one can let the clerk handle that part. So, if a new editor starts to participate in an ArbCom case, the clerk notifies ArbCom and then ArbCom looks into this and takes whatever action is necessary (e.g. checkuser tests and then approval or not based on that). For other editors the same action can also be taken, but only if some red flags are raised. In case of new editors, as a rule, ArbCom is always notified. Count Iblis ( talk) 22:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This isn't an onerous requirement for a well-intended contributor, but it insures that any "new" editor receives minimal scrutiny. — Coren (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
During the case, the identities may become clear, but participants are not allowed to out themselves or others. The involved editors always have to be refered to in the third person. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
For this motion, there are 16 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 9 votes are a majority.
That no editor with less than 1000 750 edits may give evidence or may make workshop proposals unless they (i) are either a party to the relevant case or (ii) have been expressly authorised by an arbitrator to give evidence or make workshop proposals by the Arbitration Committee.
I was under the impression that any transgression of the rules defined by Wikipedia's principles and guidelines at an ARBPIA page is by definition an ARBPIA violation. But even more minimally: I/P-banned editors are allowed to edit I/P articles as long as their edits don't involve the conflict in any way, correct? In other words, an I/P-banned editor wouldn't be allowed to remove content from an I/P BLP where that content has implications vis-a-vis the conflict; and similarly, an I/P-banned editor wouldn't be allowed to reference an anti-Zionist advocacy site, because anti-Zionism is a feature of the I/P conflict. I'm only inquiring as to the scope of the discretionary sanctions, not soliciting comment on any of the specific incidents currently being debated at AE.— Biosketch ( talk) 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, these may be slightly ignorant but at least to me they make sense, so some help would be appreciated:
Cheers. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the best person to answer these questions, since arbitrators aren't usually very active on AE, but maybe I'm the first one to see to some of them, so—:
Ok, I've looked at this some more and I am still confused. The template for filing AE request is supposedly here: [38]. I made some changes there. Best as I can tell, this has had no effect what so ever on what actually appears at the AE page. Is it this page that needs to be changed? Why are there two of them? Which one is the "real" page? Why is half of the /preload page unavailable for editing (and where is the part that is nonavailable?) What is going on here? Where are the talk pages for these things? This seems to be all over place and nobody has a clue what's going on. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The use of abstention in arbitrator voting has been causing elements of arbitration cases and motions to technically pass or fail while the abstain section contains many arbitrator votes consisting of comments heavily leaning for or against. The Arbitration Committee needs to review its use of abstention in order to ensure that the committee position on an issue is clear and that they have the requisite support to provide legitimacy for that position. Initiating arbitrator: John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The solution might be to have some fraction of arbs considered quorum (as you suggested), but that would make vote counting even more complicated than it ends up now with abstentions. I'm not sure there is a better solution than "try to use abstentions sparingly". — Coren (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like to make a clerk motion that the Committee adopt one consistent form of alternate numbering; this 3a/5.1 stuff isn't going to fly ;-) Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Failed motions |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Motion 1That Arbitration Committee members should not use abstain votes as a vehicle for comment.
Motion 2That where Arbitration Committee members make comments to accompany abstain votes, the comments should be limited to providing a rationale for the abstention (for instance, to recuse on a particular aspect of a case).
Motion 3A motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, with the exception of a motion to close an arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.
Motion 3aA motion will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators. This applies to both motions proposed as part of an arbitration case and those proposed independent of any arbitration case, and is applicable regardless of the venue in which the motion was proposed.
Motion 4A proposal made as part of a proposed decision will be considered to have passed when it is endorsed by an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators.
Motion 5That a section entitled "Not voting" be used in addition to 'Abstain'; for arbitrators to comment or signify that they have reviewed the item and do not wish to alter the voting count or calculation method.
|
That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months.
Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)