This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 19 |
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On April 6, 2018, an article Buchalter, A Professional Corporation was published to Wikipedia. SamHolt6 flagged this page for speedy deletion. Accepting his offer to contact him if there were any questions, the editor was contacted with thoughtful consideration, providing why this article and subject was of merit. The article and subsequent comments contesting the deletion were instantaneously deleted. After again attempting to contact SamHolt6 in good faith asking to have a conversation and find a compromise, the attempts to contact SamHolt6 have gone unanswered. This article topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Independent sources that fairly portray the subject have been identified without undue attention to the subject's own views. The majority of the references are solely about the articles subject. Furthermore, there are numerous Wiki articles on comparable topics within this industry type. Arbitration on this matter has become the only option due to the unresponsiveness of the editor and failure to compromise per Wikipedia’s guidelines. Any assistance with having this article published is greatly appreciated. Missfixit1975 ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Missfixit1975
Thank you so much for this response and direction. I am not seeing who the article's deleting admin was, can you please help me with identifying this? Missfixit1975 ( talk) 17:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Missfixit1975
Is there any progress update on the proposed change to case naming? If there isn't any imminent change, then I would like to merge the proof of concept I discussed earlier into the {{ ArbCase}} template. It would work as usual on existing case names, but also allow defined aliases to work. isaacl ( talk) 05:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
For The Signpost, I need to know something. The clerks noted that with 9 active, 5 Arbs is a majority for this case. The vote is now 8/0/0. Is there something holding up formal acceptance? Is there a clerk shortage as suggested in the comment? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:07, 3 May 2018 (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.
To allow the community to consider a discretionary sanction prior to an appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications are modified as follows:
The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee,
The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA. An editor may appeal directly to ARCA if there are legitimate concerns regarding whether the appeal could be handled in a neutral or timely way at AN or AE (these concerns must be explained in the ARCA appeal). Appeals involving private information must be submitted, by email, to the Arbitration Committee.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Where stage two has not been tried, any arbitrator may instruct the clerks to refer the appeal to AE or AN.This gives you a way to refuse to hear premature appeals without completely cutting off access to ARCA where there is genuinely no point in an appeal at AE/AN. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There was a January proceeding at AE that is now moot in the sense that my one-month topic ban from the Donald Trump article has ended, but it’s not moot in the sense that User:NeilN is presently relying on it to give me a broader and indefinite topic ban in response to a since-deleted comment at my user talk page. Can I or should I explicitly include that January AE proceeding in my request for Amendment of Neil’s sanction that is currently under way, or is such inclusion already implied? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Can the community get an applied enforcement sanction repealed or is that decided only by administrators? GoodDay ( talk) 19:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm checking on the status of my message sent to the ArbCom email list on 7 May. I subsequently followed up with a couple of arbs individually via email, to check whether my email arrived. I've not received an acknowledgement or a reply. Given that there's an active case, I'd also like to check on the best way to communicate with ArbCom, i.e. should I expect a response within a certain period of time, etc.? I know that emails are held for moderation, so that's perhaps where the issue is. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Beating away the cobwebs, coughing from the displaced dust.] Arbitrators, I understand defining the scope of the German war effort of 1939–45 case is very tricky, as the case y'all have accepted looks like several different cases, but nobody at all has edited the WP:ARC page for a full week. It's a ghost town. There has been a majority for accepting the case for getting on for three weeks. Shall I tag it with Template:Historical? Is there really frantic activity behind the scenes? On this talkpage, the bot has silently archived Euryalus's expression of hope that the "bureaucratic pettifogging" / "elevated discourse" about the case on your mailing list would speed up! [2] That's how long ago that was posted. I can appreciate your situation, but I'm sure you can also appreciate the situations of K.e.coffman, LargelyRecyclable, and other interested parties, twisting in the wind.
Have you ever considered appointing a secretary for the committee, for the purpose of making occasional updates in circumstances like this, just to reassure the parties they haven't been forgotten? "We've not decided on the scope yet, sorry it's taking so long." Or "It looks like we'll never agree, so don't get your hopes up." Something. Bishonen | talk 09:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC).
Speaking only for myself, nobody owes me an apology. This is potentially very broad in scope, there's a lot to go through, and I'm all for due diligence. In the mean time, I'm still largely inactive and life goes on. As always, if any additional information from me can be of use prior to the evidentiary phase I'll make sure to set aside the time. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Wowsers, the ARCA case concerning civility in the infobox discussions, kinda got archived rather quickly. GoodDay ( talk) 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, it's been re-opened :) GoodDay ( talk) 22:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that list of off-wiki speculation and personal attacks appropriate? That kind of thing is one reason I suggested any case should be private. Guy ( Help!) 17:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
1. Is it OK for an editor to respond within another editor's section? Please go to my section to see what I'm referring to. If not, the clerks should remove or move the response in my section. (editor is removing their comment)
2. What can be said about off-wiki postings and articles that are the heart of the Galloway case? Can they be linked? I don't see an outing issue but perhaps there is one.
--- Coretheapple ( talk) 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am writing regarding this page: /info/en/?search=Ravi_Shankar_(poet)
The most important biographical detail, that Mr. Shankar started the world's oldest electronic journal of the arts, is continuously being changed by an editor ScrapIronIV who knows the subject and is interposing biased subject matter, including false information like the suggestion that Mr. Shankar stole school funds. This has already been addressed and changed yet ScrapIronIV continues to try to curate this page based on biased and inaccurate information. We suggest that he NOT be allowed to access this page any longer. 2601:18D:880:94EF:B54C:3BA6:D24B:42FB ( talk) 00:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello clerks, this is something I really ought to know, but I can't find anywhere that states a limit on statement lengths at ARCA. If there is such, I'd like to request an extension; responding to a group appeal by up to ten editors necessarily requires a significant amount of rebuttal.
Also, I requested it in my initial statement but I don't think anyone has responded; I think since all the editors who were banned have been notified, it is only reasonable that the admins commenting at AE (who unanimously agreed with the ban) also be notified. I think it would be controversial for me to do it, so I'd be grateful if one of you could. GoldenRing ( talk) 20:20, 29 May 2018 (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.
Corect me if I’m wrong, but normally pretty much everywhere on Wikipedia, if you wish to retract a statement that has been repeatedly replied to you strike it out as opposed to just re-writing it the next day. I would therefore ask that a clerk deal with this. Thank you. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Several arbitrators have accepted a case which, if I understand it correctly, is a somewhat different case from the one being made, and perhaps has different parties. This is a point of order, I'm not looking to argue the substance of either case here, but I just don't understand how things work. Do I have 2 different statements or should I try to address the other statements as part of my statement? Should I just wait for a clerk or arbs to rearrange the case? If the case is declined on one grounds does that affect the other grounds? I know it's not a legal process but a dispute resolution process. I'm a little confused about what the dispute is, and with whom. Andrevan @ 23:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
User:L235 ,@ ArbCom Clerks: Misuse of Tools violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT as a bureaucrat . User:Andrevan has clearly stated in his RFB He had stated I will never let a personal opinion influence an RfA closing if made a bureaucrat, and I will not register a support or oppose opinion AND close the same RfA as per his answer in his RFB.But he closes at 74% even though he had voted which is reverted after a community outcry. There is motion against him But are told to go to Arbcom if they wish to desysop him User:Andrevan has not closed any RFA since 2014 this is the only RFA he has closed and since 2013 he has closed only 1 other RFA and closed this RFA due to a dispute with User:TParis
User:Andrevan has a prior dispute with User:TParis the main opposer in the said RFA with 20 oppose votes per him,which he himself mentions AND OTHER STUFF FROM TP Lost Community confidence Conduct unbecoming an admin It has come to the right venue Problematic behavior from an Administrator and it was closed as If an editor believes that Andrevan should be desysopped, ArbCom is the proper venue. Violated WP:OUTING , WP:BATTLEGROUND and differences were redacted User:Melanie * *** Thanks for stepping in, Neil. I’m shocked to see someone like Andrevan pursuing the outing of an editor. His battlefield, us-vs.-them mentality is bad enough, but deliberate outing is an absolute no-no that usually leads to blocks or worse - as he surely knows given his length of service and his multiple positions of trust. Adding “I’m not sure if it’s really him” makes it even worse IMO. See redacted differences Personal attacks Called other editors Russian paid agents in content dispute without evidence 183.82.17.103 ( talk) 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay Please copy it to the evidence page then.Thank you. 183.82.17.103 ( talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, am asking only for informational purposes. Have no connect with the case but just wanted to follow this case through the month. Thanks, Lourdes 05:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gotten the feeling that Arbcom is not voting on case requests as the guide to arbitration says they do for some time now. To quote from the guide, "In a request for Arbitration, a User tries to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention as well as the steps already attempted to resolve it." However it's seems obvious that Arbcom goes beyond looking at these two things even during the request. Instead, Arbcom demands evidence that a user has done something wrong. The latest example: WTT votes to accept a case because the subject (Andrevan) "doesn't seem to have learned from the experience", a clear sign that he's not thinking in terms of "is there a dispute" and "has other dispute resolution been attempted".
What's especially troubling about this is that in the previous election, every single one of the elected arbitrators said the existence of a case doesn't indicate that the committee will impose sanctions. However if Arbcom is also looking for evidence of wrongdoing, and decline any case without such evidence, then of course the existence of a case means the committee will impose sanctions! The committee not imposing sanctions indicates there was no wrongdoing, and the case itself wouldn't exist without wrongdoing.
I'm not saying that this particular case should not be accepted. I am saying that RFAR is not doing what is advertised right now, and furthermore, what it's doing is fundamentally inconsistent with the statements of all elected arbitrators. Arbcom should either think in terms of the two stated requirements and accept more cases, or Arbcom should add a third requirement (some evidence of wrongdoing must be provided), and accept that the existence of a case request will almost surely lead to sanctions. Banedon ( talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two important goals at play here. One is that we don't want to prejudge any case. The other is that we don't want to put everyone through the time and effort of the whole case process unless there's a real need for a case. Reconciling these two goals at the request stage is not always the easiest part of this role. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In the matter of Icewhiz, there is a "Statement by François Robere".
I have been unable to reach his Wikipedia talk page.
Does François Robere have a Wikipedia account?
Thanks.
Nihil novi ( talk) 09:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Weirdly, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions was just hatted, despite community input in it being requested, and various threads being ongoing. I'd like to see a few of those resolved. Xaosflux wrote, 'regarding "its already passed" what was the point of inviting community comments - to try to change the mind of all the committee members who voted prior to eliciting the community comments?' Then then entire thing was hatted as if to really drive it home that input wasn't really sought. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
In the lower thread, you wrote: "We require edit notices for page-level restrictions in addition to the alert." Okay, so why is "awareness" possible [aside from the mobile bug] when it's a page-level restriction but not otherwise? The editnotices did count as "awareness" of page-restrictions before the mobile bug was discovered. The template doesn't behave differently, nor the the editors. We're right back to there not being a consistent rationale, a necessity for [hand-]delivered alerts in user talk, which we know cause more strife than they stop.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Can someone elaborate as to why an invitation for community comments was sent out regarding this motion when as User:Opabinia regalis noted it had already passed and quickly closed without much time for the members who already voted to have a chance to review the community comments? Ping to User:L235 who invited comments at 19:33, 3 July 2018 and User:GoldenRing who closed the discussion down less then 2 days later during a week of holidays for large portions of the community. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 5 July 2018 (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.
The following sentence is added to the end of the "Alerts" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."
The Arbitration Committee is aware of a discussion taking place at the Village Pump regarding issuing discretionary sanctions alerts via bot. As this discussion has a potentially large impact on how discretionary sanctions operate, the Arbitration Committee has decided to clarify existing procedures to note that alerts are expected to be manually given at this time. This is intended as a clarification of existing practices and expectations, not a change in current practice. The Arbitration Committee will fully review the advisory Village Pump discussion after completion and take community comments under consideration.
Enacted - GoldenRing ( talk) 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert|ap}}
(which for each requires a manual save, and will pop up the are-you-sure editfilter box with the steps for checking that they don't already have one this year). Permissible? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts.is just making up a rule that isn't needed and can just be an avenue to future arguments. Isn't the point that the committee doesn't want these alerts coming from bots? e.g. "Editors may not use bot accounts to issue alerts." should suffice? — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As some of you will be aware, I've tried to address various issues with DS and Ds/alert at ArbCom talk, ARBPOL talk, AC/DS talk, even Ds/alert talk, over many years, and from many angles, and been stonewalled on virtually every single point, every time. Even, back when, getting the Ds/alerts revised to stop making bogus accusations of wrongdoing in them (that shamefully took multiple ARCAs, one of which had to be opened on my and someone else's behalf because ArbCom – a compositionally different ArbCom – just wouldn't listen otherwise). So, this RfC was not some off-the-cuff whim. It's been years coming, and there really was no other option to crack through the crust of ArbCom's bureaucracy bubble; cf. second comment here. (I am of course aware that ArbCom changes membership somewhat from year to year; this is an institutional problem, not a personalities one. I ran for ArbCom last term, with the primary goal of addressing this stuff hands-on. I received more support than several now-sitting Arbs, but I have some detractors from various content disputes, so I didn't quite make the cut due to opposes.)
DS has crept from encyclopedia content disputes into interfering with internal policy debate, a separation-of-powers problem. And it's gone from something to implement when really needed, for only as long as really needed, into something that never, ever goes away once authorized for that topic, as long as someone can show "a dispute" here or there, despite the fact that the disputes pointed to do not need DS to resolve them but could be handled at ANI, and despite attempts to use DS to do so turning into horrible messes that would not have happened at ANI (or NORN, ANEW, whatever). It's the classic non-fallacious slippery slope: once power is taken ("temporarily", "for an emergency") it will not be yielded. When a civil society collapses into despotism over time, this is almost always how it happens. Jemielniak's op-ed isn't spelling it out in the same terms, but these ideas are of a piece; coups happen more often by an privileged, insider bureaucracy working slowly than by a sudden violent upheaval.
But let's suppose DS is just fine as-is. The current "awareness" cognitive dissonance stuff is not. I've delivered a lot of Ds/alerts. To date, only one single time has someone treated it as an awareness notice instead of an attack/threat to which they should respond with escalation or even public grandstanding in article talk about being "attacked". If we don't have a bot deliver them automatically, then we need a bot that does it by request. Or an admin board where admins go do it by request. Or a button we can click that does it by request. Without delivery being tied (at least without digging around) to someone specific. Otherwise, 99.5% (or so) of the time it's going to continue to escalate rather than reduce conflict. It's having the diametric opposite of the intended effect. Counterproductive. Failure. Whatever words you like for "not working".
An even saner plan is to just put DS editnotices and talk-page banners on all affected pages, and treat these as "awareness". If you edit there, you get the notice, you are aware, the end. Or have some micro-bureaucratic rule, if you must, like there must be X edits to such pages in Y span of time to be aware; that could be reasonable. Or – this isn't crazy – forget the awareness stuff and just enforce the rules evenly, like we do with all other rules (and with leeway shown to new editors). None of this is innately hard. ArbCom has forced it to be hard against the community's expectations and collective will.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: We "should make editors aware that discretionary sanctions apply to a page or a topic-area when ... the editor needs to be aware that his or her editing on a particular topic is subject to special rules.
" That's more tautology. Why would an editor need to have this fact hidden from them? Sounds like a great argument in support of my RfC proposal, frankly. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The RfC proposal isn't really concrete at the moment" – Indeed. It's a first-draft approach (aside from minor textual twiddles). I expected this to to be 80% oppose right off the bat, but it actually has legs, probably for a second, refined RfC another time. If the literal idea of having a bot drop off the notices ... well, robotically is flat-out rejected, it's very clear that the community thinks some of problems inspiring the proposal need to be addressed. I don't really care how that happens. The bot idea is more of a kludge than anything, a "better than nothing" patch, but if talking about it gets a productive ball rolling, great. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
NadirAli was unbanned by Arbcom in 2014. [5] As per the findings on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli/Archive#29 June 2018, it has been satisfactorily proven that NadirAli evaded the Arbcom siteban, later Arbcom restrictions like topic ban, one account restriction.
Admins are asked to reinstate the block for the violations of the user that they may have missed during the unblock, I believe Arbcom is also supposed to do the same.
Even after removal of topic ban, disruption was always out of control. NadirAli has been subject to indefinite image upload ban, [6] two indefinite blocks for copyright violations, [7] [8] a block for violation of 1RR, [9] multiple valid reports on WP:ARE, [10] [11] an ANI thread discussing sanctions [12] and he indefinitely was topic banned recently from India-Pakistan conflict. [13] Has evaded his both indefinite topic bans per CU findings. Ping Worm That Turned who is still an arbitrator and the arbitrator who had unblocked and implemented Arbcom unban for NadirAli. My Lord ( talk) 06:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
TL;DR: it's very likely (my personal opinion) that the Committee would want to see whether the community is able to handle this (via AN or ANI) before re-involving itself given the time which has passed. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 15 July 2018 :::(UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 19:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Can I have my editing restriction of page creation and discussion of NC and moves please. I have waited 6 months and edited as instructed. I have not had any problems with my moves on Commons and know that I need to follow consensus and propose potentially controversial moves. With creations I have to some extent reached an agreement with Nilfanion. I will mainly be creating pages for missing civil parishes and I will likely discuss with Nilfanion if I intend to create a large number of other topics. Note that I might not be around much next week but I hope that doesn't cause too many problems with this. I have never been blocked on Commons or had editing restrictions there, however if there is concern about my contributions which shouldn't happen, I will voluntary agree to restrictions, for example I have to discuss all moves I make.
Can I ask what this is about? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm a party to this, but clearly I'm interested. I'd urge ArbCom to read this discussion on my talk page. I'm surprised that he immediately came here at the 6 month (though I shouldn't be). My intentions were (and still are) to try and support him over the coming weeks/months to prove he can write good articles, and demonstrate he now has the key skills he lacked in the past and would likely produce new articles in a non-disruptive manner. If he had done so, at that point I'd have been inclined to approach ArbCom on his behalf to urge the restrictions were withdrawn.
The behaviour that triggered his initial block was generated by the mass creation of stubs on minor geographic places (leading to work at AFD, effort in merging into sensible parent articles, pointless templates being created etc). When he didn't stop that quickly death spiralled into socking. His comments, both during the discussion on my talk page and in his statement here, trouble me:
All of these points suggest to me the potential for future disruption identical to what triggered the initial block.
Recent activity on Commons at CFD (the closest analog to WP:RM) may be of interest to ArbCom, as it shows other aspects of his behaviour: This show him closing a very high impact case, with minimal involvement from others. He did not initially care about fixing the consequences. He frets about "correctness" a lot, especially with following the one true source, and makes a lot of moves as a result. If he was allowed, he is bound to do the same on Wikipedia. His understanding definitely varies from Wikipedia norms. Some examples of moves: [14] is at variance with an old WP discussion. [15] quotes WP:UKPLACE incorrectly (it applies to settlements, not natural features). [16] to remove hyphens (not used by his preferred source, but used by other sources).
Based on the evidence above, at this time I oppose removal of the restrictions on article creation and removal of the restrictions on page moving. The other restrictions (no involvement in RM, or in discussions about naming conventions) could be removed - that would give Crouch, Swale to the ability to demonstrate on Wikipedia that the page move restrictions could be safely relaxed in future.
@ BU Rob13: Crouch, Swale hasn't contributed to any requested moves since he was unblocked, because his current restrictions prevent him from doing so. See my comment above about Commons, for similar activity on that project.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Concur with Nilfanion. The very recent thread at [17] indicates insufficient cluefullness (still, somehow). Given the previous track-record of grossly disruptive socking and endless creation of pointless one-liners, a desire to keep creating micro-stubs after all this is a big red-flag. I agree with Nilfanion's WP:ROPE idea of easing some other restrictions, but there should be no hesitation in re-imposing the RM/move ban should more trouble arise in that area. We already have too high of a noise:signal and heat:light ratio in that sector. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Also concur with BU Rob13 here; it's not really possible to do much at RM without referring to the naming conventions and their applicability/non-applicability to the case at hand. If you can't do those things, you'd be reduced to WP:JUSTAVOTE in many cases, and that is discouraged. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs) as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Crouch, Swale fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Crouch, Swale's remaining restrictions continue in force.
Enacted -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Guy Macon at 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Please let me know if I should post a notice on the talk pages of the participants at the noticeboard) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Per the discussions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why not just ask Arbcom?, I would like to request clarification/guidance concerning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels? and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions
In particular, some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...
...from restoration of permissions, arguing that if at the time of the resignation there did not exist an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that had a reasonable chance of leading to sanctions or desysopping, restoration should be automatic.
On the other hand some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...
...from return of access levels, arguing that if there have been significant complaints that may have, if not for the discussion being shut down by the resignation, led to an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that may have lead to sanctions or desysopping, an new RfA should be required.
The Bureaucrats were split 4 to 6 on this with one 'crat saying...
"So I'd err on resysopping someone who may or may not be or been have desysopping by arbcom and let arbcom deal with desysopping if they so choose."
...while another wrote...
"Obviously the community does not allow us to stand in for ArbCom and stand in judgment over resigned administrators. But I don't think that means our job is just to return the tools absent evidence of the worst kind of misconduct. The community has authorized us only to return the tools in uncontroversial circumstances. So I'd err the other way. If not relatively uncontroversial, I think RfA is the way to go."
Pretty much everyone, editors and 'crats, agreed with the opinion, expressed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy, that "My honest and unprejudiced reading of the evidence presented is that it clearly does not cross a bright line. Yet I find many honest and unprejudiced Wikipedians who I respect disagree with me. I take from this that our policy isn't clear enough."
This may result in an RfC, but even if it does, I think that some clarification from Arbcom concerning the return of access levels section of the Scientology case would help to avoid the participants in the RfC simply repeating the same confusion regarding policy.
I will post a link to this on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Although it may be more proper to suggest wording at an RfC rather than through an ARCA. I think the Arbs may be able to further clarify their interpretation by expanding on, in a more general manner, the example provided in the case. That may be reaching beyond the scope because I do not believe there was a need to make a more general interpretation to rule on the circumstances of the case. Jbh Talk 03:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)An administrator who resigned at a time when there was either an ongoing formal process which was avoided, circumvented, or minimized as a result of their resignation ie actively avoiding scrutiny or in circumstances where such a process was reasonably likely to follow if the admin did not resign ie controversial circumstances may only regain the bit via a new RfA.
A concern some of us raised over at BN is that any active (or at least "enforcing") admin always has various people upset at them and convinced they're a "badmin". Judging whether someone resigned "under a cloud" needs to be tied to whether formal process against the admin (for admin actions, or actions that could have called into question admin suitability), was under way when they resigned. It's not sufficient that the admin was criticized or had "enemies". In the case that triggered this debate, the returning ex-admin had not been subject to formal scrutiny when resigning, but did have some other editors angry at them. Taking a long wikibreak in the face of drama, short of noticeboard or ArbCom scrutiny of one's admin or adminship-affecting activities, shouldn't force a re-RfA. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:Bureaucrats (including
WP:RESYSOP) is not policy (or even "guideline") and never has been; the reason it has the cumbersome
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Header at the top rather than the usual {{
policy}} or {{
guideline}} reflects the fact that no attempt to elevate it to anything more than an informal set of notes has ever been successful. As far as I'm aware, the resysop procedures never have been formally codified, other than in a few old arb cases like Scientology. The closest thing we have to a formal policy is the relevant part of the closure of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy, which is the rather unhelpful Administrators that did not resign in controversial circumstances and whose identity is not in question will be reinstated as per resysopping policy
, which still punts it back to the 'crats to determine what constitutes "controversial circumstances". (There might be some RFCs regarding the limits of 'crat discretion from the time of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka and
associated recall petition or from
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 but I'm no great desire to reopen those cans of worms, and in any case that was an eternity ago in Wikipedia years and the much more recent
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy would have superseded any decisions reached.) ‑
Iridescent 10:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I first want to echo everything Iridescent said above me. The Resysopping section was
added in early 2010 (
BN discussion) and has since been expanded to incorporate the
inactive admin policy (
BN discussion) and note the
principle in question. While the procedures have existed in a largely similar form for years — I imagine NYB's history and institutional knowledge will be quite helpful! — to my knowledge Iri is correct that in large part they haven't been officially codified. I suppose it might be helpful for the Committee to clarify how broadly they think Scientology's circumstances of controversy
should be interpreted by Bureaucrats (perhaps by noting they need not be "formal," whatever that means), but I think that's somewhat missing the point. It's not for the Committee to make policy, so if the community wishes to codify, clarify, or change policy as to how Bureaucrats interpret the proverbial cloud, we can (and should, as it seems Bureaucrats themselves would appreciate it).
To wit, I largely agree with Callanecc and Alex Shih that there isn't much for ArbCom to do here. To
repeat and
paraphrase my comments at BN, the process is working, even if some folks disagree with the latest outcome. That there is disagreement on a particular situation from different Bureaucrats is not prima facie evidence that the process is broken, just that Bureaucrats sometimes have hard jobs. The part that I see that could merit clarification from ArbCom is in the next line of that Principle: Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats
(emphasis added). I take that vagueness to refer to cases involving special authority — ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc. — but if there is confusion as to what the Committee feels doesn't fall under 'crat purview, that could be worth clarifying. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
were there controversial circumstances?and refrained from voting. The one bureaucrat in favour of support ( Deskana) had their concerns addressed after additional comments by Xaosflux, Useight and SoWhy. In their response to Deskana, the bureaucrat voted oppose (Useight) expressed that they are "okay" with resysop. This leaves us with WJBscribe and Acalamari to be the two remaining votes strongly in oppose of resysop. But despite of voting strong oppose, WJBscribe did not contest Dweller's close even though they commented in their talk page afterwards. Therefore I disagree with the assessment that Dweller acted against policy and/or participated in bureaucrat supervote. Alex Shih ( talk) 08:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Return of access levels. Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ivanvector at 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I'm requesting clarification of NadirAli's unblock conditions, which included a topic ban which was later suspended and then presumably rescinded as part of the suspension motion. The first bullet of the unblock conditions describes the topic ban and also the remedies for enforcement of the topic ban. The second bullet specifies that NadirAli may not edit from an alternate account nor "anonymously" (which I have taken to mean editing while logged out) but does not separately specify enforcement remedies. I have two questions:
Thanks for your time. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that Ivanvector has brought this to Arbcom for clarification. As per the standards of blocking policy for sockpuppetry, the sockmaster with his socks is indeffed for repeated offences. An indefinite block is completely justified in this case since this is not the first time that NadirAli is guilty of sock puppetry, but many many times. [19]
Furthermore, we must not forget that NadirAli evaded his siteban, topic ban, one-account restriction and image upload ban throughout these 10 years. -- RaviC ( talk) 16:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
I just posted an amendment request, and am asking for an exception to the word length since it involves 2 editors in the same case, therefore each would receive 700+/- words. I sent an email request to Kevin. Thank you in advance. Atsme 📞 📧 18:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I've been advised by Arbcom that in order to have a two-way IBAN between me and a semi-retired editor with whom I've not interacted for at least a year or so be removed, I need to fill in an ARCA request. I don't know what I'm doing there, would anyone be able to help me please? As (of course) one or more Arbcom (or even some twitchy admins) would be happy to block me even for mentioning the name of the other party, I'd appreciate help via email if that's possible. Naturally, this could simply have been a discussion between Arbcom, me and the third party, but that's not how it works. Cheers in advance. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum, and #3 is probably under Double_secret_probation. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Tryptofish at 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I would like to ask the Committee how one should understand the following question:
I'm asking this question based on several recent experiences at WP:AE (it doesn't matter which ones). It appears to me that enforcing administrators have become reluctant to get involved in some complaints, when the complaint is not a clear-cut and obvious one. In particular, I have been seeing administrator comments along the lines of "we expect a certain amount of nastiness in topic areas that are highly disputed, so we should just let that go." I realize of course that this is always a case-by-case sort of thing. I suspect that some of this grows out of a concern about backlash against an administrative decision, some out of the fact that there aren't very many admins working at AE, some out of the difficulty of working through tl;dr statements, and some out of the good-faith and very reasonable desire not to sanction someone for simply getting a little hot under the collar.
But I've also long believed (perhaps mistakenly) that part of the idea behind DS is that the Committee has determined that the topic area has become such a problem that there is a need to decisively clamp down on disruptive behavior, and that editors who are properly "aware" are expected not to test the boundaries of acceptable conduct. But I think I've been hearing from some AE admins that they regard conduct that has been chronic and disruptive, way beyond the typical hot under the collar situation, but that is the kind of thing that leads to a wall-of-text at WP:ANI, as suboptimal but acceptable when DS are in effect. So how should admins at AE understand the intention of DS in that regard? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
This says to me that general community norms are meant to be preserved as much as possible, but when an editor departs from these norms to any degree, there is far less leniency granted.I see that sentence as being at the heart of what I am asking. It sounds to me like, as far as what I called "good behavior" goes, the basic concept of what that is, is the same with or without DS, but when DS are present, it is expected that there will be "far less leniency" for deviations from proper conduct. Is that correct? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Acting decisively is one thing; going out on a limb and getting it cut from behind you is another.I think some reassurance that AE admins are supposed to get things up to "normal" – as opposed to just keeping them above rock-bottom – could be beneficial. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we know of any research that shows what effects the Arbcom authorization of Discretionary Sanctions has, if any, both positive and negative? Research of this nature could shed some light on whether modifications or clarifications, such as Tryptofish mentions, would be good. The scope of my question is broader than Tryptofish's question, but there is some overlap. I'm not proposing modifications or clarifications, or opposing modifications or clarifications, but I think that a review of research would be beneficial before deciding what next steps to take. -- Pine ✉ 19:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a good clarification question being posed. I have a bit of a followup related to the interplay of DS and ArbCom. When behavior X is a major disruptive issue in the topic, arbs can pass motions as a finding of fact saying it has caused disruption while allowing general DS in the topic or even passing principles or DS specifically saying such behavior is not appropriate instead.
Now when it comes to AE, editors can present such behavior and say ArbCom has said this isn't appropriate. Admins are free to say what degree of sanctions are needed or not, etc. However, when admins say they expect that level of behavior in DS topics or even say they don't think that behavior is a problem, isn't that contradicting ArbCom to a degree? Admins obviously have discretion with discretionary sanctions, but can that discretion contradict ArbCom findings that specific behavior is problem when it comes to these behavior issues Tryptofish is talking about? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This might be a dumb question (sorry) but can someone point me to a clear definition of exactly what "discretionary sanctions" is or are? This is a very good clarification, Tryptofish. Thank you. Minor 4th 00:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I still haven't figured out how/why ArbCom doesn't handle arbitration enforcement - I wonder if doing so would result in better remedies during arbitration. 😉 Gotta wonder why we have this venue for clarification. We elect administrators to use the mop to keep the peace and do necessary janitorial chores around the project, which means that with our admin shortage, they're already overworked and pressed for time. We elect ArbCom to resolve the complex issues that could not be remedied by the community or individual admins, so why is arb enforcement left to the discretion of a single admin? The words of Opabinia regalis still reverberate regarding an issue brought to this noticeboard because it was too complex for AE: ..."too complex for AE" means "too complex for self-selected volunteers who aren't actually obliged to do fuck all", whereas "too complex for ARCA" means "too complex for the people who specifically volunteered for and were elected to deal with complex problems and are as obliged to do things as anybody can be in an internet hobby". We can thank our lucky stars that we have a good share of excellent admins and arbitrators and that complex matters don't have to be judged by a single admin who serves as both our judge & jury. I think arb remedies/DS should always be handled by a minimum of three admins, and the three should rotate every quarter. My apologies for being so critical, but the entire process just doesn't seem to be very efficient, and we're losing good editors as a result. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 02:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Is there some reason the drmies case request is still up? It’s been unanimously rejected by 3/4 of active arbs for over 24 hours. It seems like it would be in everyone’s best interest for it to be removed ASAP. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Similar question in the Hardy C&A case. It was archived a week ago, but has been sitting here hatted since then. I thought they were hatted for 24 hours? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is the place to request my restrictions to be lifted? Here or the Village pump? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently there is nowhere where old Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment requests are archived? ....even Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment redirects here (which is why I am asking the question here). If I am mistaken about this, then please direct me to the archives of WP:ARCA.
I really miss such an archive, as I normally edit articles under WP:ARBPIA. The sanctions such articles are under have been modified several times these last few years (mostly after WP:ARCA discussions), and it would be very useful having direct links to previous discussions, (The WP:ARCA discussions which actually lead to change can be reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, however, there are lots of discussions which do not lead to a change, and they are nowhere to be easily found, AFAIK. Which mean we can discuss the same thing over and over and over again, with no result.) Huldra ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I ma very disturbed re: the reward User:Boing! said Zebedee was able to achieve through the use of tools. He edit wars with an ArbCom candidate he disagrees with. BSZ then blocks the candidate Bauder which by rule disqualifies Bauder from running (Red Queen rules, apparently). The edit warring was over formatting in non-article space. ArbCom should look into whether BSZ should retain the tools after using them in a way to throw an election. ArbCom at the minimum should explicitly denounce this tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 ( talk) 03:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Come, now. How long a case takes is up to you -- six weeks is not required. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the {{ ArbCase}} template to support a numeric alias in the form of year-number, as I previously discussed. (The hyphen is optional.) For this to work, Module:ArbCaseAlias/data must be updated with the corresponding alias for each case. All interested persons are invited to update the configuration file as needed. The documentation for the ArbCase template has been updated to display a list of all supported numeric aliases. (You can see from the configuration file that as part of the proof of concept, I also implemented aliases using colour names, but the documentation currently only shows the numeric aliases.) isaacl ( talk) 11:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Cameron11598: My statement went over 500 words. Does hatting my comments suffice to address potential concerns about going over the 500 word limit? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have not come to praise Caesar.
I don't know what it means to "scramble" ones Wikipedia password, but everywhere I have looked, there is no way to actually "close" an account. Jytdog has deleted his gmail account, though all this does is make it impossible to reach him that way (what the benefit to the community of doing this I do not know). He has sworn off possible sockpuppetry, but since I have actually watched him do this twice in the past (I am sure that he knows where and via which (Redacted)), the promise to never do it sounds more like a promise to do just that. He won't have his current credentials — maybe he figures he will be able to rebuild them over time.
What I SEE is a great deal of self-flagelation in hope of eventual atonement. In his pursuit of protecting the "beautiful" project that is Wikipedia, Jytdog has, among other things, deliberately interfered with the edit request process for COI editors, and has worked with some relentlessness to orchestrate indefinite bans against those with far fewer crimes in their pasts than his. "I talk advocates/conflicted people off the ledge"... He also enthusiastically carved those ledges and lead editors to them. Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, daß er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. Not everyone will be displeased to see his account closed. In any case, the man will be back soon enough. Pushdown&turn1 ( talk) 03:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 19 |
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On April 6, 2018, an article Buchalter, A Professional Corporation was published to Wikipedia. SamHolt6 flagged this page for speedy deletion. Accepting his offer to contact him if there were any questions, the editor was contacted with thoughtful consideration, providing why this article and subject was of merit. The article and subsequent comments contesting the deletion were instantaneously deleted. After again attempting to contact SamHolt6 in good faith asking to have a conversation and find a compromise, the attempts to contact SamHolt6 have gone unanswered. This article topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Independent sources that fairly portray the subject have been identified without undue attention to the subject's own views. The majority of the references are solely about the articles subject. Furthermore, there are numerous Wiki articles on comparable topics within this industry type. Arbitration on this matter has become the only option due to the unresponsiveness of the editor and failure to compromise per Wikipedia’s guidelines. Any assistance with having this article published is greatly appreciated. Missfixit1975 ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Missfixit1975
Thank you so much for this response and direction. I am not seeing who the article's deleting admin was, can you please help me with identifying this? Missfixit1975 ( talk) 17:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Missfixit1975
Is there any progress update on the proposed change to case naming? If there isn't any imminent change, then I would like to merge the proof of concept I discussed earlier into the {{ ArbCase}} template. It would work as usual on existing case names, but also allow defined aliases to work. isaacl ( talk) 05:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
For The Signpost, I need to know something. The clerks noted that with 9 active, 5 Arbs is a majority for this case. The vote is now 8/0/0. Is there something holding up formal acceptance? Is there a clerk shortage as suggested in the comment? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:07, 3 May 2018 (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.
To allow the community to consider a discretionary sanction prior to an appeal directly to the Arbitration Committee, the discretionary sanctions procedures described at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications are modified as follows:
The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee,
The editor must request review at AE or AN prior to appealing at ARCA. An editor may appeal directly to ARCA if there are legitimate concerns regarding whether the appeal could be handled in a neutral or timely way at AN or AE (these concerns must be explained in the ARCA appeal). Appeals involving private information must be submitted, by email, to the Arbitration Committee.Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Where stage two has not been tried, any arbitrator may instruct the clerks to refer the appeal to AE or AN.This gives you a way to refuse to hear premature appeals without completely cutting off access to ARCA where there is genuinely no point in an appeal at AE/AN. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There was a January proceeding at AE that is now moot in the sense that my one-month topic ban from the Donald Trump article has ended, but it’s not moot in the sense that User:NeilN is presently relying on it to give me a broader and indefinite topic ban in response to a since-deleted comment at my user talk page. Can I or should I explicitly include that January AE proceeding in my request for Amendment of Neil’s sanction that is currently under way, or is such inclusion already implied? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Can the community get an applied enforcement sanction repealed or is that decided only by administrators? GoodDay ( talk) 19:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm checking on the status of my message sent to the ArbCom email list on 7 May. I subsequently followed up with a couple of arbs individually via email, to check whether my email arrived. I've not received an acknowledgement or a reply. Given that there's an active case, I'd also like to check on the best way to communicate with ArbCom, i.e. should I expect a response within a certain period of time, etc.? I know that emails are held for moderation, so that's perhaps where the issue is. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Beating away the cobwebs, coughing from the displaced dust.] Arbitrators, I understand defining the scope of the German war effort of 1939–45 case is very tricky, as the case y'all have accepted looks like several different cases, but nobody at all has edited the WP:ARC page for a full week. It's a ghost town. There has been a majority for accepting the case for getting on for three weeks. Shall I tag it with Template:Historical? Is there really frantic activity behind the scenes? On this talkpage, the bot has silently archived Euryalus's expression of hope that the "bureaucratic pettifogging" / "elevated discourse" about the case on your mailing list would speed up! [2] That's how long ago that was posted. I can appreciate your situation, but I'm sure you can also appreciate the situations of K.e.coffman, LargelyRecyclable, and other interested parties, twisting in the wind.
Have you ever considered appointing a secretary for the committee, for the purpose of making occasional updates in circumstances like this, just to reassure the parties they haven't been forgotten? "We've not decided on the scope yet, sorry it's taking so long." Or "It looks like we'll never agree, so don't get your hopes up." Something. Bishonen | talk 09:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC).
Speaking only for myself, nobody owes me an apology. This is potentially very broad in scope, there's a lot to go through, and I'm all for due diligence. In the mean time, I'm still largely inactive and life goes on. As always, if any additional information from me can be of use prior to the evidentiary phase I'll make sure to set aside the time. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Wowsers, the ARCA case concerning civility in the infobox discussions, kinda got archived rather quickly. GoodDay ( talk) 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, it's been re-opened :) GoodDay ( talk) 22:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that list of off-wiki speculation and personal attacks appropriate? That kind of thing is one reason I suggested any case should be private. Guy ( Help!) 17:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
1. Is it OK for an editor to respond within another editor's section? Please go to my section to see what I'm referring to. If not, the clerks should remove or move the response in my section. (editor is removing their comment)
2. What can be said about off-wiki postings and articles that are the heart of the Galloway case? Can they be linked? I don't see an outing issue but perhaps there is one.
--- Coretheapple ( talk) 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am writing regarding this page: /info/en/?search=Ravi_Shankar_(poet)
The most important biographical detail, that Mr. Shankar started the world's oldest electronic journal of the arts, is continuously being changed by an editor ScrapIronIV who knows the subject and is interposing biased subject matter, including false information like the suggestion that Mr. Shankar stole school funds. This has already been addressed and changed yet ScrapIronIV continues to try to curate this page based on biased and inaccurate information. We suggest that he NOT be allowed to access this page any longer. 2601:18D:880:94EF:B54C:3BA6:D24B:42FB ( talk) 00:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello clerks, this is something I really ought to know, but I can't find anywhere that states a limit on statement lengths at ARCA. If there is such, I'd like to request an extension; responding to a group appeal by up to ten editors necessarily requires a significant amount of rebuttal.
Also, I requested it in my initial statement but I don't think anyone has responded; I think since all the editors who were banned have been notified, it is only reasonable that the admins commenting at AE (who unanimously agreed with the ban) also be notified. I think it would be controversial for me to do it, so I'd be grateful if one of you could. GoldenRing ( talk) 20:20, 29 May 2018 (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.
Corect me if I’m wrong, but normally pretty much everywhere on Wikipedia, if you wish to retract a statement that has been repeatedly replied to you strike it out as opposed to just re-writing it the next day. I would therefore ask that a clerk deal with this. Thank you. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Several arbitrators have accepted a case which, if I understand it correctly, is a somewhat different case from the one being made, and perhaps has different parties. This is a point of order, I'm not looking to argue the substance of either case here, but I just don't understand how things work. Do I have 2 different statements or should I try to address the other statements as part of my statement? Should I just wait for a clerk or arbs to rearrange the case? If the case is declined on one grounds does that affect the other grounds? I know it's not a legal process but a dispute resolution process. I'm a little confused about what the dispute is, and with whom. Andrevan @ 23:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
User:L235 ,@ ArbCom Clerks: Misuse of Tools violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT as a bureaucrat . User:Andrevan has clearly stated in his RFB He had stated I will never let a personal opinion influence an RfA closing if made a bureaucrat, and I will not register a support or oppose opinion AND close the same RfA as per his answer in his RFB.But he closes at 74% even though he had voted which is reverted after a community outcry. There is motion against him But are told to go to Arbcom if they wish to desysop him User:Andrevan has not closed any RFA since 2014 this is the only RFA he has closed and since 2013 he has closed only 1 other RFA and closed this RFA due to a dispute with User:TParis
User:Andrevan has a prior dispute with User:TParis the main opposer in the said RFA with 20 oppose votes per him,which he himself mentions AND OTHER STUFF FROM TP Lost Community confidence Conduct unbecoming an admin It has come to the right venue Problematic behavior from an Administrator and it was closed as If an editor believes that Andrevan should be desysopped, ArbCom is the proper venue. Violated WP:OUTING , WP:BATTLEGROUND and differences were redacted User:Melanie * *** Thanks for stepping in, Neil. I’m shocked to see someone like Andrevan pursuing the outing of an editor. His battlefield, us-vs.-them mentality is bad enough, but deliberate outing is an absolute no-no that usually leads to blocks or worse - as he surely knows given his length of service and his multiple positions of trust. Adding “I’m not sure if it’s really him” makes it even worse IMO. See redacted differences Personal attacks Called other editors Russian paid agents in content dispute without evidence 183.82.17.103 ( talk) 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay Please copy it to the evidence page then.Thank you. 183.82.17.103 ( talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, am asking only for informational purposes. Have no connect with the case but just wanted to follow this case through the month. Thanks, Lourdes 05:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gotten the feeling that Arbcom is not voting on case requests as the guide to arbitration says they do for some time now. To quote from the guide, "In a request for Arbitration, a User tries to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention as well as the steps already attempted to resolve it." However it's seems obvious that Arbcom goes beyond looking at these two things even during the request. Instead, Arbcom demands evidence that a user has done something wrong. The latest example: WTT votes to accept a case because the subject (Andrevan) "doesn't seem to have learned from the experience", a clear sign that he's not thinking in terms of "is there a dispute" and "has other dispute resolution been attempted".
What's especially troubling about this is that in the previous election, every single one of the elected arbitrators said the existence of a case doesn't indicate that the committee will impose sanctions. However if Arbcom is also looking for evidence of wrongdoing, and decline any case without such evidence, then of course the existence of a case means the committee will impose sanctions! The committee not imposing sanctions indicates there was no wrongdoing, and the case itself wouldn't exist without wrongdoing.
I'm not saying that this particular case should not be accepted. I am saying that RFAR is not doing what is advertised right now, and furthermore, what it's doing is fundamentally inconsistent with the statements of all elected arbitrators. Arbcom should either think in terms of the two stated requirements and accept more cases, or Arbcom should add a third requirement (some evidence of wrongdoing must be provided), and accept that the existence of a case request will almost surely lead to sanctions. Banedon ( talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two important goals at play here. One is that we don't want to prejudge any case. The other is that we don't want to put everyone through the time and effort of the whole case process unless there's a real need for a case. Reconciling these two goals at the request stage is not always the easiest part of this role. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In the matter of Icewhiz, there is a "Statement by François Robere".
I have been unable to reach his Wikipedia talk page.
Does François Robere have a Wikipedia account?
Thanks.
Nihil novi ( talk) 09:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Weirdly, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions was just hatted, despite community input in it being requested, and various threads being ongoing. I'd like to see a few of those resolved. Xaosflux wrote, 'regarding "its already passed" what was the point of inviting community comments - to try to change the mind of all the committee members who voted prior to eliciting the community comments?' Then then entire thing was hatted as if to really drive it home that input wasn't really sought. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
In the lower thread, you wrote: "We require edit notices for page-level restrictions in addition to the alert." Okay, so why is "awareness" possible [aside from the mobile bug] when it's a page-level restriction but not otherwise? The editnotices did count as "awareness" of page-restrictions before the mobile bug was discovered. The template doesn't behave differently, nor the the editors. We're right back to there not being a consistent rationale, a necessity for [hand-]delivered alerts in user talk, which we know cause more strife than they stop.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Can someone elaborate as to why an invitation for community comments was sent out regarding this motion when as User:Opabinia regalis noted it had already passed and quickly closed without much time for the members who already voted to have a chance to review the community comments? Ping to User:L235 who invited comments at 19:33, 3 July 2018 and User:GoldenRing who closed the discussion down less then 2 days later during a week of holidays for large portions of the community. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 5 July 2018 (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.
The following sentence is added to the end of the "Alerts" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."
The Arbitration Committee is aware of a discussion taking place at the Village Pump regarding issuing discretionary sanctions alerts via bot. As this discussion has a potentially large impact on how discretionary sanctions operate, the Arbitration Committee has decided to clarify existing procedures to note that alerts are expected to be manually given at this time. This is intended as a clarification of existing practices and expectations, not a change in current practice. The Arbitration Committee will fully review the advisory Village Pump discussion after completion and take community comments under consideration.
Enacted - GoldenRing ( talk) 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert|ap}}
(which for each requires a manual save, and will pop up the are-you-sure editfilter box with the steps for checking that they don't already have one this year). Permissible? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts.is just making up a rule that isn't needed and can just be an avenue to future arguments. Isn't the point that the committee doesn't want these alerts coming from bots? e.g. "Editors may not use bot accounts to issue alerts." should suffice? — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As some of you will be aware, I've tried to address various issues with DS and Ds/alert at ArbCom talk, ARBPOL talk, AC/DS talk, even Ds/alert talk, over many years, and from many angles, and been stonewalled on virtually every single point, every time. Even, back when, getting the Ds/alerts revised to stop making bogus accusations of wrongdoing in them (that shamefully took multiple ARCAs, one of which had to be opened on my and someone else's behalf because ArbCom – a compositionally different ArbCom – just wouldn't listen otherwise). So, this RfC was not some off-the-cuff whim. It's been years coming, and there really was no other option to crack through the crust of ArbCom's bureaucracy bubble; cf. second comment here. (I am of course aware that ArbCom changes membership somewhat from year to year; this is an institutional problem, not a personalities one. I ran for ArbCom last term, with the primary goal of addressing this stuff hands-on. I received more support than several now-sitting Arbs, but I have some detractors from various content disputes, so I didn't quite make the cut due to opposes.)
DS has crept from encyclopedia content disputes into interfering with internal policy debate, a separation-of-powers problem. And it's gone from something to implement when really needed, for only as long as really needed, into something that never, ever goes away once authorized for that topic, as long as someone can show "a dispute" here or there, despite the fact that the disputes pointed to do not need DS to resolve them but could be handled at ANI, and despite attempts to use DS to do so turning into horrible messes that would not have happened at ANI (or NORN, ANEW, whatever). It's the classic non-fallacious slippery slope: once power is taken ("temporarily", "for an emergency") it will not be yielded. When a civil society collapses into despotism over time, this is almost always how it happens. Jemielniak's op-ed isn't spelling it out in the same terms, but these ideas are of a piece; coups happen more often by an privileged, insider bureaucracy working slowly than by a sudden violent upheaval.
But let's suppose DS is just fine as-is. The current "awareness" cognitive dissonance stuff is not. I've delivered a lot of Ds/alerts. To date, only one single time has someone treated it as an awareness notice instead of an attack/threat to which they should respond with escalation or even public grandstanding in article talk about being "attacked". If we don't have a bot deliver them automatically, then we need a bot that does it by request. Or an admin board where admins go do it by request. Or a button we can click that does it by request. Without delivery being tied (at least without digging around) to someone specific. Otherwise, 99.5% (or so) of the time it's going to continue to escalate rather than reduce conflict. It's having the diametric opposite of the intended effect. Counterproductive. Failure. Whatever words you like for "not working".
An even saner plan is to just put DS editnotices and talk-page banners on all affected pages, and treat these as "awareness". If you edit there, you get the notice, you are aware, the end. Or have some micro-bureaucratic rule, if you must, like there must be X edits to such pages in Y span of time to be aware; that could be reasonable. Or – this isn't crazy – forget the awareness stuff and just enforce the rules evenly, like we do with all other rules (and with leeway shown to new editors). None of this is innately hard. ArbCom has forced it to be hard against the community's expectations and collective will.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: We "should make editors aware that discretionary sanctions apply to a page or a topic-area when ... the editor needs to be aware that his or her editing on a particular topic is subject to special rules.
" That's more tautology. Why would an editor need to have this fact hidden from them? Sounds like a great argument in support of my RfC proposal, frankly. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The RfC proposal isn't really concrete at the moment" – Indeed. It's a first-draft approach (aside from minor textual twiddles). I expected this to to be 80% oppose right off the bat, but it actually has legs, probably for a second, refined RfC another time. If the literal idea of having a bot drop off the notices ... well, robotically is flat-out rejected, it's very clear that the community thinks some of problems inspiring the proposal need to be addressed. I don't really care how that happens. The bot idea is more of a kludge than anything, a "better than nothing" patch, but if talking about it gets a productive ball rolling, great. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
NadirAli was unbanned by Arbcom in 2014. [5] As per the findings on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NadirAli/Archive#29 June 2018, it has been satisfactorily proven that NadirAli evaded the Arbcom siteban, later Arbcom restrictions like topic ban, one account restriction.
Admins are asked to reinstate the block for the violations of the user that they may have missed during the unblock, I believe Arbcom is also supposed to do the same.
Even after removal of topic ban, disruption was always out of control. NadirAli has been subject to indefinite image upload ban, [6] two indefinite blocks for copyright violations, [7] [8] a block for violation of 1RR, [9] multiple valid reports on WP:ARE, [10] [11] an ANI thread discussing sanctions [12] and he indefinitely was topic banned recently from India-Pakistan conflict. [13] Has evaded his both indefinite topic bans per CU findings. Ping Worm That Turned who is still an arbitrator and the arbitrator who had unblocked and implemented Arbcom unban for NadirAli. My Lord ( talk) 06:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
TL;DR: it's very likely (my personal opinion) that the Committee would want to see whether the community is able to handle this (via AN or ANI) before re-involving itself given the time which has passed. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 15 July 2018 :::(UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 19:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Can I have my editing restriction of page creation and discussion of NC and moves please. I have waited 6 months and edited as instructed. I have not had any problems with my moves on Commons and know that I need to follow consensus and propose potentially controversial moves. With creations I have to some extent reached an agreement with Nilfanion. I will mainly be creating pages for missing civil parishes and I will likely discuss with Nilfanion if I intend to create a large number of other topics. Note that I might not be around much next week but I hope that doesn't cause too many problems with this. I have never been blocked on Commons or had editing restrictions there, however if there is concern about my contributions which shouldn't happen, I will voluntary agree to restrictions, for example I have to discuss all moves I make.
Can I ask what this is about? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm a party to this, but clearly I'm interested. I'd urge ArbCom to read this discussion on my talk page. I'm surprised that he immediately came here at the 6 month (though I shouldn't be). My intentions were (and still are) to try and support him over the coming weeks/months to prove he can write good articles, and demonstrate he now has the key skills he lacked in the past and would likely produce new articles in a non-disruptive manner. If he had done so, at that point I'd have been inclined to approach ArbCom on his behalf to urge the restrictions were withdrawn.
The behaviour that triggered his initial block was generated by the mass creation of stubs on minor geographic places (leading to work at AFD, effort in merging into sensible parent articles, pointless templates being created etc). When he didn't stop that quickly death spiralled into socking. His comments, both during the discussion on my talk page and in his statement here, trouble me:
All of these points suggest to me the potential for future disruption identical to what triggered the initial block.
Recent activity on Commons at CFD (the closest analog to WP:RM) may be of interest to ArbCom, as it shows other aspects of his behaviour: This show him closing a very high impact case, with minimal involvement from others. He did not initially care about fixing the consequences. He frets about "correctness" a lot, especially with following the one true source, and makes a lot of moves as a result. If he was allowed, he is bound to do the same on Wikipedia. His understanding definitely varies from Wikipedia norms. Some examples of moves: [14] is at variance with an old WP discussion. [15] quotes WP:UKPLACE incorrectly (it applies to settlements, not natural features). [16] to remove hyphens (not used by his preferred source, but used by other sources).
Based on the evidence above, at this time I oppose removal of the restrictions on article creation and removal of the restrictions on page moving. The other restrictions (no involvement in RM, or in discussions about naming conventions) could be removed - that would give Crouch, Swale to the ability to demonstrate on Wikipedia that the page move restrictions could be safely relaxed in future.
@ BU Rob13: Crouch, Swale hasn't contributed to any requested moves since he was unblocked, because his current restrictions prevent him from doing so. See my comment above about Commons, for similar activity on that project.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Concur with Nilfanion. The very recent thread at [17] indicates insufficient cluefullness (still, somehow). Given the previous track-record of grossly disruptive socking and endless creation of pointless one-liners, a desire to keep creating micro-stubs after all this is a big red-flag. I agree with Nilfanion's WP:ROPE idea of easing some other restrictions, but there should be no hesitation in re-imposing the RM/move ban should more trouble arise in that area. We already have too high of a noise:signal and heat:light ratio in that sector. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Also concur with BU Rob13 here; it's not really possible to do much at RM without referring to the naming conventions and their applicability/non-applicability to the case at hand. If you can't do those things, you'd be reduced to WP:JUSTAVOTE in many cases, and that is discouraged. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
The topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions imposed on Crouch, Swale ( talk · contribs) as part of their unblock conditions in January 2018 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Crouch, Swale fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Crouch, Swale's remaining restrictions continue in force.
Enacted -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Guy Macon at 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Please let me know if I should post a notice on the talk pages of the participants at the noticeboard) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Per the discussions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Why not just ask Arbcom?, I would like to request clarification/guidance concerning Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels? and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration of permissions
In particular, some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...
...from restoration of permissions, arguing that if at the time of the resignation there did not exist an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that had a reasonable chance of leading to sanctions or desysopping, restoration should be automatic.
On the other hand some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...
...from return of access levels, arguing that if there have been significant complaints that may have, if not for the discussion being shut down by the resignation, led to an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that may have lead to sanctions or desysopping, an new RfA should be required.
The Bureaucrats were split 4 to 6 on this with one 'crat saying...
"So I'd err on resysopping someone who may or may not be or been have desysopping by arbcom and let arbcom deal with desysopping if they so choose."
...while another wrote...
"Obviously the community does not allow us to stand in for ArbCom and stand in judgment over resigned administrators. But I don't think that means our job is just to return the tools absent evidence of the worst kind of misconduct. The community has authorized us only to return the tools in uncontroversial circumstances. So I'd err the other way. If not relatively uncontroversial, I think RfA is the way to go."
Pretty much everyone, editors and 'crats, agreed with the opinion, expressed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Clarifying policy, that "My honest and unprejudiced reading of the evidence presented is that it clearly does not cross a bright line. Yet I find many honest and unprejudiced Wikipedians who I respect disagree with me. I take from this that our policy isn't clear enough."
This may result in an RfC, but even if it does, I think that some clarification from Arbcom concerning the return of access levels section of the Scientology case would help to avoid the participants in the RfC simply repeating the same confusion regarding policy.
I will post a link to this on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Although it may be more proper to suggest wording at an RfC rather than through an ARCA. I think the Arbs may be able to further clarify their interpretation by expanding on, in a more general manner, the example provided in the case. That may be reaching beyond the scope because I do not believe there was a need to make a more general interpretation to rule on the circumstances of the case. Jbh Talk 03:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)An administrator who resigned at a time when there was either an ongoing formal process which was avoided, circumvented, or minimized as a result of their resignation ie actively avoiding scrutiny or in circumstances where such a process was reasonably likely to follow if the admin did not resign ie controversial circumstances may only regain the bit via a new RfA.
A concern some of us raised over at BN is that any active (or at least "enforcing") admin always has various people upset at them and convinced they're a "badmin". Judging whether someone resigned "under a cloud" needs to be tied to whether formal process against the admin (for admin actions, or actions that could have called into question admin suitability), was under way when they resigned. It's not sufficient that the admin was criticized or had "enemies". In the case that triggered this debate, the returning ex-admin had not been subject to formal scrutiny when resigning, but did have some other editors angry at them. Taking a long wikibreak in the face of drama, short of noticeboard or ArbCom scrutiny of one's admin or adminship-affecting activities, shouldn't force a re-RfA. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:Bureaucrats (including
WP:RESYSOP) is not policy (or even "guideline") and never has been; the reason it has the cumbersome
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Header at the top rather than the usual {{
policy}} or {{
guideline}} reflects the fact that no attempt to elevate it to anything more than an informal set of notes has ever been successful. As far as I'm aware, the resysop procedures never have been formally codified, other than in a few old arb cases like Scientology. The closest thing we have to a formal policy is the relevant part of the closure of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy, which is the rather unhelpful Administrators that did not resign in controversial circumstances and whose identity is not in question will be reinstated as per resysopping policy
, which still punts it back to the 'crats to determine what constitutes "controversial circumstances". (There might be some RFCs regarding the limits of 'crat discretion from the time of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka and
associated recall petition or from
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny 2 but I'm no great desire to reopen those cans of worms, and in any case that was an eternity ago in Wikipedia years and the much more recent
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy would have superseded any decisions reached.) ‑
Iridescent 10:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I first want to echo everything Iridescent said above me. The Resysopping section was
added in early 2010 (
BN discussion) and has since been expanded to incorporate the
inactive admin policy (
BN discussion) and note the
principle in question. While the procedures have existed in a largely similar form for years — I imagine NYB's history and institutional knowledge will be quite helpful! — to my knowledge Iri is correct that in large part they haven't been officially codified. I suppose it might be helpful for the Committee to clarify how broadly they think Scientology's circumstances of controversy
should be interpreted by Bureaucrats (perhaps by noting they need not be "formal," whatever that means), but I think that's somewhat missing the point. It's not for the Committee to make policy, so if the community wishes to codify, clarify, or change policy as to how Bureaucrats interpret the proverbial cloud, we can (and should, as it seems Bureaucrats themselves would appreciate it).
To wit, I largely agree with Callanecc and Alex Shih that there isn't much for ArbCom to do here. To
repeat and
paraphrase my comments at BN, the process is working, even if some folks disagree with the latest outcome. That there is disagreement on a particular situation from different Bureaucrats is not prima facie evidence that the process is broken, just that Bureaucrats sometimes have hard jobs. The part that I see that could merit clarification from ArbCom is in the next line of that Principle: Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats
(emphasis added). I take that vagueness to refer to cases involving special authority — ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc. — but if there is confusion as to what the Committee feels doesn't fall under 'crat purview, that could be worth clarifying. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
were there controversial circumstances?and refrained from voting. The one bureaucrat in favour of support ( Deskana) had their concerns addressed after additional comments by Xaosflux, Useight and SoWhy. In their response to Deskana, the bureaucrat voted oppose (Useight) expressed that they are "okay" with resysop. This leaves us with WJBscribe and Acalamari to be the two remaining votes strongly in oppose of resysop. But despite of voting strong oppose, WJBscribe did not contest Dweller's close even though they commented in their talk page afterwards. Therefore I disagree with the assessment that Dweller acted against policy and/or participated in bureaucrat supervote. Alex Shih ( talk) 08:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Return of access levels. Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ivanvector at 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I'm requesting clarification of NadirAli's unblock conditions, which included a topic ban which was later suspended and then presumably rescinded as part of the suspension motion. The first bullet of the unblock conditions describes the topic ban and also the remedies for enforcement of the topic ban. The second bullet specifies that NadirAli may not edit from an alternate account nor "anonymously" (which I have taken to mean editing while logged out) but does not separately specify enforcement remedies. I have two questions:
Thanks for your time. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that Ivanvector has brought this to Arbcom for clarification. As per the standards of blocking policy for sockpuppetry, the sockmaster with his socks is indeffed for repeated offences. An indefinite block is completely justified in this case since this is not the first time that NadirAli is guilty of sock puppetry, but many many times. [19]
Furthermore, we must not forget that NadirAli evaded his siteban, topic ban, one-account restriction and image upload ban throughout these 10 years. -- RaviC ( talk) 16:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
I just posted an amendment request, and am asking for an exception to the word length since it involves 2 editors in the same case, therefore each would receive 700+/- words. I sent an email request to Kevin. Thank you in advance. Atsme 📞 📧 18:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I've been advised by Arbcom that in order to have a two-way IBAN between me and a semi-retired editor with whom I've not interacted for at least a year or so be removed, I need to fill in an ARCA request. I don't know what I'm doing there, would anyone be able to help me please? As (of course) one or more Arbcom (or even some twitchy admins) would be happy to block me even for mentioning the name of the other party, I'd appreciate help via email if that's possible. Naturally, this could simply have been a discussion between Arbcom, me and the third party, but that's not how it works. Cheers in advance. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum, and #3 is probably under Double_secret_probation. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Tryptofish at 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I would like to ask the Committee how one should understand the following question:
I'm asking this question based on several recent experiences at WP:AE (it doesn't matter which ones). It appears to me that enforcing administrators have become reluctant to get involved in some complaints, when the complaint is not a clear-cut and obvious one. In particular, I have been seeing administrator comments along the lines of "we expect a certain amount of nastiness in topic areas that are highly disputed, so we should just let that go." I realize of course that this is always a case-by-case sort of thing. I suspect that some of this grows out of a concern about backlash against an administrative decision, some out of the fact that there aren't very many admins working at AE, some out of the difficulty of working through tl;dr statements, and some out of the good-faith and very reasonable desire not to sanction someone for simply getting a little hot under the collar.
But I've also long believed (perhaps mistakenly) that part of the idea behind DS is that the Committee has determined that the topic area has become such a problem that there is a need to decisively clamp down on disruptive behavior, and that editors who are properly "aware" are expected not to test the boundaries of acceptable conduct. But I think I've been hearing from some AE admins that they regard conduct that has been chronic and disruptive, way beyond the typical hot under the collar situation, but that is the kind of thing that leads to a wall-of-text at WP:ANI, as suboptimal but acceptable when DS are in effect. So how should admins at AE understand the intention of DS in that regard? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
This says to me that general community norms are meant to be preserved as much as possible, but when an editor departs from these norms to any degree, there is far less leniency granted.I see that sentence as being at the heart of what I am asking. It sounds to me like, as far as what I called "good behavior" goes, the basic concept of what that is, is the same with or without DS, but when DS are present, it is expected that there will be "far less leniency" for deviations from proper conduct. Is that correct? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Acting decisively is one thing; going out on a limb and getting it cut from behind you is another.I think some reassurance that AE admins are supposed to get things up to "normal" – as opposed to just keeping them above rock-bottom – could be beneficial. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we know of any research that shows what effects the Arbcom authorization of Discretionary Sanctions has, if any, both positive and negative? Research of this nature could shed some light on whether modifications or clarifications, such as Tryptofish mentions, would be good. The scope of my question is broader than Tryptofish's question, but there is some overlap. I'm not proposing modifications or clarifications, or opposing modifications or clarifications, but I think that a review of research would be beneficial before deciding what next steps to take. -- Pine ✉ 19:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a good clarification question being posed. I have a bit of a followup related to the interplay of DS and ArbCom. When behavior X is a major disruptive issue in the topic, arbs can pass motions as a finding of fact saying it has caused disruption while allowing general DS in the topic or even passing principles or DS specifically saying such behavior is not appropriate instead.
Now when it comes to AE, editors can present such behavior and say ArbCom has said this isn't appropriate. Admins are free to say what degree of sanctions are needed or not, etc. However, when admins say they expect that level of behavior in DS topics or even say they don't think that behavior is a problem, isn't that contradicting ArbCom to a degree? Admins obviously have discretion with discretionary sanctions, but can that discretion contradict ArbCom findings that specific behavior is problem when it comes to these behavior issues Tryptofish is talking about? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This might be a dumb question (sorry) but can someone point me to a clear definition of exactly what "discretionary sanctions" is or are? This is a very good clarification, Tryptofish. Thank you. Minor 4th 00:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I still haven't figured out how/why ArbCom doesn't handle arbitration enforcement - I wonder if doing so would result in better remedies during arbitration. 😉 Gotta wonder why we have this venue for clarification. We elect administrators to use the mop to keep the peace and do necessary janitorial chores around the project, which means that with our admin shortage, they're already overworked and pressed for time. We elect ArbCom to resolve the complex issues that could not be remedied by the community or individual admins, so why is arb enforcement left to the discretion of a single admin? The words of Opabinia regalis still reverberate regarding an issue brought to this noticeboard because it was too complex for AE: ..."too complex for AE" means "too complex for self-selected volunteers who aren't actually obliged to do fuck all", whereas "too complex for ARCA" means "too complex for the people who specifically volunteered for and were elected to deal with complex problems and are as obliged to do things as anybody can be in an internet hobby". We can thank our lucky stars that we have a good share of excellent admins and arbitrators and that complex matters don't have to be judged by a single admin who serves as both our judge & jury. I think arb remedies/DS should always be handled by a minimum of three admins, and the three should rotate every quarter. My apologies for being so critical, but the entire process just doesn't seem to be very efficient, and we're losing good editors as a result. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 02:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Is there some reason the drmies case request is still up? It’s been unanimously rejected by 3/4 of active arbs for over 24 hours. It seems like it would be in everyone’s best interest for it to be removed ASAP. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Similar question in the Hardy C&A case. It was archived a week ago, but has been sitting here hatted since then. I thought they were hatted for 24 hours? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 17:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is the place to request my restrictions to be lifted? Here or the Village pump? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently there is nowhere where old Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment requests are archived? ....even Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment redirects here (which is why I am asking the question here). If I am mistaken about this, then please direct me to the archives of WP:ARCA.
I really miss such an archive, as I normally edit articles under WP:ARBPIA. The sanctions such articles are under have been modified several times these last few years (mostly after WP:ARCA discussions), and it would be very useful having direct links to previous discussions, (The WP:ARCA discussions which actually lead to change can be reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, however, there are lots of discussions which do not lead to a change, and they are nowhere to be easily found, AFAIK. Which mean we can discuss the same thing over and over and over again, with no result.) Huldra ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I ma very disturbed re: the reward User:Boing! said Zebedee was able to achieve through the use of tools. He edit wars with an ArbCom candidate he disagrees with. BSZ then blocks the candidate Bauder which by rule disqualifies Bauder from running (Red Queen rules, apparently). The edit warring was over formatting in non-article space. ArbCom should look into whether BSZ should retain the tools after using them in a way to throw an election. ArbCom at the minimum should explicitly denounce this tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 ( talk) 03:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Come, now. How long a case takes is up to you -- six weeks is not required. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the {{ ArbCase}} template to support a numeric alias in the form of year-number, as I previously discussed. (The hyphen is optional.) For this to work, Module:ArbCaseAlias/data must be updated with the corresponding alias for each case. All interested persons are invited to update the configuration file as needed. The documentation for the ArbCase template has been updated to display a list of all supported numeric aliases. (You can see from the configuration file that as part of the proof of concept, I also implemented aliases using colour names, but the documentation currently only shows the numeric aliases.) isaacl ( talk) 11:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Cameron11598: My statement went over 500 words. Does hatting my comments suffice to address potential concerns about going over the 500 word limit? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have not come to praise Caesar.
I don't know what it means to "scramble" ones Wikipedia password, but everywhere I have looked, there is no way to actually "close" an account. Jytdog has deleted his gmail account, though all this does is make it impossible to reach him that way (what the benefit to the community of doing this I do not know). He has sworn off possible sockpuppetry, but since I have actually watched him do this twice in the past (I am sure that he knows where and via which (Redacted)), the promise to never do it sounds more like a promise to do just that. He won't have his current credentials — maybe he figures he will be able to rebuild them over time.
What I SEE is a great deal of self-flagelation in hope of eventual atonement. In his pursuit of protecting the "beautiful" project that is Wikipedia, Jytdog has, among other things, deliberately interfered with the edit request process for COI editors, and has worked with some relentlessness to orchestrate indefinite bans against those with far fewer crimes in their pasts than his. "I talk advocates/conflicted people off the ledge"... He also enthusiastically carved those ledges and lead editors to them. Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, daß er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. Not everyone will be displeased to see his account closed. In any case, the man will be back soon enough. Pushdown&turn1 ( talk) 03:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)