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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Ubie the guru ( talk · contribs) has made three edits, two to AE and the other to Talk:SodaStream, also related to I/P issues. There's not enough here for a SPI, and none of the edits individually is a problem. Even so -- WP:ILLEGIT probably applies. Any thoughts on whether/how to approach it? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell: if you want to discuss the conduct of other editors, please file a separate request against name individuals; I will happily evaluate it with the same open mind as I have this request, and I will personally sanction anyone whose misconduct is brought to my attention, but sweeping assertions against a large group of editors are not relevant to the request against Gilabrand.
HJ Mitchell: Everybody: Please keep your comments concise, on-topic, and restricted to whether or not Gilabrand's conduct is acceptable. Again, if you want the conduct of others examined, please file a separate request against named editors, providing diffs. The next person who posts assertions without providing evidence will be blocked.
Georgewilliamherbert: So, here's my fear. Irrespective of Gilabrand's specifics, if we draw a new line where people seem to want to, my read is that almost everyone (excepting Nishidani) who filed complaints this time gets topic banned when we come around to enforcing that line in a fair and even manner.
I understand that this area is impossibly frustrating for administrators to deal with, and I understand the temptation to dismiss everyone who edits in the area as beyond salvation (except for Nishidani, we agree there), but I don't see how it's helpful to do so in such a broad fashion as Georgewilliamherbert has done here, especially without specifics.
More generally, one unintended consequence of ARBPIA has been for problematic editing on the subject to become ever subtler as older methods of POV-pushing are identified, articulated, and sanctioned. I don't see how this request draws a new line, but even if it does, it's a line that needs to be drawn. Georgewilliamherbert's fear that everyone but Nishidani will be topic-banned is probably not likely to come to pass, as editors will learn to conform as they have in the past, and that will help the encyclopedia. If they can't figure out how to conform, well, then, having all these articles written by Nishidani probably wouldn't be such a bad thing.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
‘There is no better example of the eradication of all traces of an entire civilization from the landscape –leaving behind only Crusader remains, which did not interfere with the conventiently chosen historical narrative- than the restoration of Kokhav Hayarden ( Kawkab al-Hawa, the Crusader Belvoir) and Caesarea. At those two sites the Arab structures were removed and the Crusader buildings were restored and made into tourist attractions. In the Israeli context, it is preferable to immortalize those who exterminated the Jewish communities of Europe (in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries) and murdered the Jews in Jerusalem in 1099 than to preserve relics of the local Arab civilization with which today’s Israelis must supposedly coexist. Crusader structures, both authentic and fabricated, lend a European, romantic character to the country’s landscape, whereas Arab buildings spoil the myth of an occupied land under foreign rule, awaiting liberation at the hands of the Jews returning to their homeland.’ Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since, 2002, University of California Press, 2002 p.303
I think there should be some procedure developed for rapidly dismissing certain case requests. A request that was just added is one of many examples where anyone knowledgeable about the process who looks at the request can tell you it will be declined unanimously. The dispute is in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, there is no indication of any meaningful dispute resolution, and it is launched by a user who was clearly either not aware of other venues more suited for this type of request or confused RFAR with one of those venues. Certain requests are just inevitably going to be declined for obvious reasons and there should be a way for this to happen quickly to minimize any potential for drama that such requests bring about.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've boldly tweaked the wording of the first sentence of the project page. My reason for doing this is that lately I've noticed that many users are unclear about the difference between arbitration and mediation. They seem to believe that formal mediation is simply the last step before taking a case to arbitration. We continually have to repeat the refrain that these are two separate forms of dispute resolution—arbitration for conduct disputes and mediation for content disputes. My hope is that the revised wording will clarify the two different streams of dispute resolution and thus help to head off this sort of forum shopping. Of course, if I've introduced some new absurdity, please revise, revert, or otherwise adjust my wording. Sunray ( talk) 18:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Original clarification request
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 Someone not using his real name ( talk) at 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Apparently Toddst1 was desysopped in some drama I have not followed closely, and consequently Holdek (originally blocked by Toddst1) was unblocked (by Worm that Turned/ArbCom). Holdek now seems to claim that his block for socking was overturned [1]. Has the committee decided that Holdek was not socking? Someone not using his real name ( talk) 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: Worm That Turned, in his rather convoluted write-up there, does not clearly say there whether he thinks Holdek was not socking (to harass Ymblanter). Also, I want to know if this was a committee decision. The "not socking" IP is still blocked for about two years, by the way [2]. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I have made an unblock request so that the IP's block log, where my username is mentioned as "clearly a sock" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=68.50.128.91&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1), is updated. I'm not sure if that was the best venue to make the request, but I couldn't find any instructions for an alternative. Holdek ( talk) 20:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Update: Request was accepted on March 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:68.50.128.91&diff=598082168&oldid=598006520. Holdek ( talk) 21:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
When will the Arbitration Committee start work on a decision in the Gun Control case? A decision was planned on 12 February 2014, and it is now March. I realize that the ArbCom has been asked to handle a lot of secondary issues such as clarifications and discretionary sanctions reviews. However, the two open cases have been long-simmering disputes in which conduct issues have made resolution of content issues difficult. If the ArbCom doesn't have time or resources to complete the cases, would it be possible to impose discretionary sanctions by temporary injunction? When will decisions on these two open cases start being worked? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've been having quite a few issues both editing the wiki and viewing diffs (both very frequently resulting in page timeouts), which unfortunately makes writing a decision rather impossible. The Wikimedia sysadmins are, to the best of my knowledge, already aware that this problem exists and has been affecting many users. I've been having much better luck this week, and am hoping for that to continue. If so, we'll get this finished up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
The general provisions are sufficiently widely drawn to cover it, GWH. It's an entirely appropriate use of DS; disputants frequently swamp (or attempt to swamp) DR pages to influence the outcome. Roger Davies talk 10:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In a recently closed AE request, the tone of many of the comments from other editors was unacceptable; in particular, several editors attempted to use the AE thread to attack other individuals (whether by name or by implication) or attempted cast aspersions against broad groups of editors whom they consider to be their "opponents". Towards the end of the request, I took a harder line on such comments by removing unsupported allegations, personal attacks, and general slurs, and blocked two editors. I'd like to see other admins take a similar zero-tolerance approach to such conduct, and I'd like the instructions and editnotice for AE to be very explicit that such conduct is likely to result in blocks. Filing an AE request does not give your "opponents" license to attack you or cast aspersions regarding your motives, and if we treat it as such, it will have a chilling effect on future reports. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Editors should be warned that their behaviour is uncivil and warrants a block. Nice, polite, and uncivil can for many people be synonymous. Do not assume editors know they have crossed the line especially in high voltage situations. That warning may be that the first uncivil comment is removed with a warning to the editor who posted it, another uncivil comment from the same user would warrant a block And Admins should be consistent. If incivility is going to be sanctioned on AE it must be for all users, not just some. As long as sanctions are handed out inconsistently there will be misunderstanding about what is allowed and what isn't and incivility on all of the boards will never stop. This might extend to RfA s where incivility is rampant. Incivility is meant to allow for collaboration and smooth functioning; sanctioning some editors, while others get away with such behaviours has the same end product as if no one is sanctioned at all - a poisonous environment rather than a smooth functioning one. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC))
Yes I understand; thanks, my point was a response to HJMitchel's points. The problem with blocking people for making allegations with out proof is where do we draw the line on what is proof. Where is the proof in an AE request itself, without diffs, that alleges wrong doing. Where is proof in evidence that is presented that does not support what is being said, that presents false information. In the end it seems to me that incivility is only the red flag that demands scrutiny be paid to the comment. But what about the bigger issue, that AE itself and how it is conducted is not consistent for all editors.That a heated comment with out diffs is not the big issue and may be actual expressions of frustration with those bigger issues. seems we are blocking editors for the smaller issues and ignoring the bigger issues. The bigger issue is treating editors unfairly, that there are rules for some editors that don't apply to others, that diffs can be presented that do not support allegations, that may be out and out lies. The editors who have experience on AE know better than to raise a red flag and draw attention to their motives, and may be expert baiters. I know AE is a tough job. I believe it has to revamped.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC))
So does anyone actually object to this hard line being taken on unsupported accusations at AE? Remember it applies to everyone, whether the unsupported accusations are made civilly or otherwise, and does not affect people being independently sanctioned for civility issues. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yet another week has gone by since the last vague assurances that this case was actually being dealt with - and still we have seen nothing. Why not? What is preventing ArbCom from carrying out the job they were elected for? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Enough. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a legitimate question, and deserves an answer. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I had no problem with the question, but continuing the same sniping which has been going on on the case pages is the reason I closed it. Probably should have made that clear, but I'm glad it didn't turn into that again. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
At the Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment, I see that editor Cirt was told that his contributions to q:Scientology were a reason for him never to be allowed to have restrictions here loosened. Now I know that in some cases off-wiki harassment is admissible, and administrative action on other wikis might be admissible, but does this process really need to allow one moment of criticism in a quickly resolved dispute on another wiki to be taken into evidence and re-litigated here? (or more to the point, litigated here for the first time since it never came to that on Wikiquote) It is inevitable that when editors on a Wiki contribute a huge amount of very useful content, as Cirt did about the Erhard Seminars Training, that there will be a few quotes that someone else thinks are a bit irrelevant or need to be trimmed down. If your standard is simply whether anyone has ever complained, there is no way Cirt could meet it without following a topic ban on Wikiquote that you did not take the opportunity to order.
It seems to me this is an executive level organization, making executive level decisions, and it has the duty either to systematically review the contributions of every editor coming before it on every Wiki (which it doesn't have the time to do), or to admit it can't do so and refer (at most) to the executive decisions of those other Wikis (such as the willingness of Wikiquote and several other projects to retain Cirt as an administrator in good standing, without sanction). Wnt ( talk) 12:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong views regarding gun control, because I don't think the evidence is clear one way or another as to whether it reduces crime. But this stuff about Nazis continues to embarrass the community. VirtuallyNo reliable academic sources believe the Holocaust was in any way about gun control. Virtually no academic articles on the Holocaust describe it as entailing gun control, and no academic articles/encyclopedia entries on gun control describe the Holocaust as an example of it. Yet this rubbish has been given a prominent place in the gun control article for months with no admin intervention.
In a tortured literal sense of the term, one can say the Nazis practiced "gun control". Similarly, one can say that laws disarming toddlers, violent criminals, and prisoners violate "gun rights." (And that white immigrants from Africa are African Americans.) This sort of use of language, while technically correct in some literal sense, is completely out of accord with the academic and colloquial meaning of words. It should be excluded from Wikipedia because context matters.
How has it taken the Committee so long to put a stop to this? Any educated person can see that the 'Holocaust=gun control' stuff is POV-pushing rubbish and a smear campaign. It utterly fails WP:RS, WP:V, and other basic community principles. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
And, speaking strictly for myself, I am willing to cut some slack to an editor who's trying to insure that content on Wikipedia complies with our policies and occasionally loses his cool, especially when faced with civil pov-pushers or with wikilawyers.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Wikipedia ought to have a body of experts elected by the community and tasked with making binding content decisions when the community is for any reasons incapable of making them. Unfortunately, we currently don't have such a body and ArbCom is prevented from fulfilling that role because we don't have either the legitimation nor (and, again, I'm speaking only for myself) the competence.
Also, erm, I am already an arbitrator, although my term is due to expire in nine months... But thanks. ;-). Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, right or wrong, the whole clear reason for requesting the Arbcom case was for the content and/or policy-on-content question, and they took the case. Although there were (are?) also some significant behavioral (abuse of editors) problems making the article unnecessarily nasty and painful (and which could use some action) and others in the case itself, those were not even in the reasons for the request for an Arbcom case. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As "talk page probation"? I know there is probation for articles, but many time the real problem is the talk page and the way discussions quickly become heated and also the way many editors will add walls of text or discuss the general subject as a tactic to fill up the talk page and move discussion away from proposed changes and suggestions. If there is such a "probation" I was wondering if I could be directed to one as an example and if there is not...how do we begin such a proposal?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
For the past several months, I have faced a continuous mudslinging campaign by a group of users in Wikipedia. These users do not respect interaction bans placed by the committee, resorting to
WP:IDHT and
WP:MEAT in order to continue what is an apparent tag-team attempt at wearing me down (if not to bully me away from the project altogether).
I have asked the arbitrators (
[5]) and community (
[6]) for help, and have received some assistance from administrators, but up to now nothing concrete has been done to prevent these individuals from continuing their
battleground behavior towards me (most recently
[7]). These users have been warned to cease
their uncivil behavior, but the matter continues from one point or the other (this is where the tag-team becomes important).
It seems to me that these editors consider themselves superior to the arbitration committee's ruling (and the opinion of administrators), because of their featured contributions on specialized content. While their contributions may be noteworthy, their arrogant demeanor has caused constant problems (including this imagined sense of superiority over other editors such as myself).
This situation is absolutely absurd. We're all for the most part volunteers in this project, and I myself have also contributed a handful of valuable featured and good article content to the encyclopedia.
All I expect in return is to be treated with the same amount of respect as any other individual deserves in the encyclopedia. I request that the Arbitration Committee please do something about this problem.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards.--
MarshalN20
Talk 05:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Coincidentally, this topic of bullying in Wikipedia has also been a recent topic of discussion at Jimbo's talk page (see [8]). Within that context, my case is part of a long list. Abusive conduct must not be tolerated in Wikipedia. There is no amount of Featured Article stars that can provide any users with impunity. Regars.-- MarshalN20 Talk 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
When will working draft proposed decisions on these cases be started? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Where does Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment get archived? I'm not finding it in any of these searchable archiveboxes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we please have a Search box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, so that the many links of the form /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Toddst1 don't lead to a dead end?
I finally figured out that I could use the second search box on this page, but my proposal stands. Let's add just that second box to the main page; 2009 was a long time ago. Y/N? -- Elvey ( talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We're more than two months overdue on a proposed decision for the Gun Control case. Can we please have an updated estimate, as well as an explanation what's taking so long? I really think the arbitrators owe this to the community that elected them to arbitrate disputes. I know there were some technical problems, but I was under the impression they had been fixed and did not account for two months of delay. The last time I remember a case being this delayed was before proposed decision due dates were introduced at the so-called Omnibus Case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Having all the arb talk pages converge, breaks the wiki because talk page comments do not show up on watchlists. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
This page in a nutshell: Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles. Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee have authorised their use. |
Discretionary sanctions may be authorised either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by committee motion. When it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor at ARCA or of its own initiative. Unless the committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding the authorisation all sanctions remain in force.
A log of the areas of conflict for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised is maintained at the discretionary sanctions main page.
Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:
Any editor whose edits do not meet these requirements may wish to restrict their editing to other topics in order to avoid the possibility of sanctions.
Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct.
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:
Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{ Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. An alert:
As {{ Ds/alert}} template is part of this procedure, it may be modified only with the committee's explicit consent.
Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
When deciding whether to sanction an editor, and which sanctions may be appropriate, the enforcing administrator’s objective should be to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles. To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum.
While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not:
Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.
To act in enforcement, an administrator must at all relevant times have their access to the tools enabled. Former administrators – that is, editors who have temporarily or permanently relinquished the tools or have been desysopped – may neither act as administrators in arbitration enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions.
Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.
Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.
Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.
When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE. For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; nor to enforce discretionary sanction beyond their reasonable scope.
The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process. The enforcing administrator must also log the sanction.
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ ds/editnotice}}).
Should any editor ignore or breach any sanction placed under this procedure, that editor may, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, receive a fresh further sanction. The further sanction must be logged on the appropriate page and the standard appeal arrangements apply.
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry. While sanctions and page restrictions are not invalidated by a failure to log, repeated failure to log may result in sanctions. The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee.
[reserved for the Standard appeals and modifications provision]
Nothing in this current version of the discretionary sanctions process constitutes grounds for appeal of a remedy or restriction imposed under prior versions of it.
All sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier versions of this process remain in force. Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions and become alerts for twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure, then expire.
Appeals open at the time this version is adopted will be handled using the prior appeals procedure, but this current process will thereafter govern appeals.
Proposed: That the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure above supersedes and replaces all prior discretionary sanction provisions with immediate effect;
"Standard Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are authorised for the area of conflict, namely any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace"
The administrator instructions page is deprecated and replaced with a redirect to the main Discretionary sanctions page."Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." and case pages/case templates are to be updated accordingly.
Proposed: That the housekeeping provisions be implemented with immediate effect;
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Important notes:
Proposed: That the updated Appeals and modifications provision become the standard provision and replace all prior discretionary sanction appeal provisions with immediate effect;
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 attempting to submit an arbitration request, but I am unable to do so because I am not a registered user. I should be appreciative if someone could copy my request to the main page once I have finished preparing it. I shall update this message once it is ready.
Update: I believe everything is now ready. I have completed the template. I am sorry I could not post it myself. Also, please close the below section: I feel bad that it is taking up so much room on the talk page. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 03:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 03:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone who is topic banned engaged today in some behavior that I think is a questionable. [9] Where do I discuss that? Lightbreather ( talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Case copied to main case page. To the anonymous 131. editor, if you have additional comments to make, please request assistance from an arbitrator or clerk on this page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by 131.111.185.66 ( talk) at 03:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Involved partiesI have included users whose involvement went beyond a simple vote. That is not to say that all of the below users are involved in the problematic edits.
Statement by 131.111.185.66The name of this article is contentious. During move request 7, there was consensus against the move, though multiple users suggested an alternative title ( diff diff diff). After studying policy, I concluded there was a strong case for this. Following advice ( diff), I closed the request ( diff) and made a good faith request to this title ( diff). From previous comments, I recognised this might be controversial. Despite this, I believed most editors could act sensibly. Some users resorted to argumentative posts ( diff diff diff). Ninety minutes after discussion began, JzG (Guy) closed it (two supports and four opposes) ( diff). He suggested he did not realise I closed the previous request early so the more favoured name could be discussed. Due to this mistake, I reverted and left a message for him ( diff). He was rude and uncommunicative, telling me to ‘talk to the hand’ ( diff). Not long afterwards, Drmies closed the discussion (four supports and seven opposes) with a biased summary ( diff). He also changed the lead of the article ( diff). I was blocked by JzG, who had not attempted discussion with me, for these reverts. After learning more, I recognise I should not have reverted, no matter how I felt. I mistakenly believed I was entitled to three reverts, especially for edits that seemed to contravene guidelines for closing active discussions. Had an editor warned me, then my actions would have been entirely different. I also did not know JzG or Drmies were administrators. JzG attacked my editing history ( diff). Other than one controversial matter (which was decided in my favour and where I tried afterwards to resolve my differences with the other editor), I have never been involved in disputes. DangerousPanda left an upsetting and offensive message for me ( diff). After I was blocked, discussion continued on the talk page and at ANI, where editors discussed whether the request should continue. After at least four more pairs of closes and reversions, JzG closed the request ( diff), with there being six supports at ANI for a close and five opposes. He created a ban on discussion and threatened to block editors who broke this ( diff diff). General discussion continued in hope of an improvement. Problems remain and progress is difficult ( diff diff diff diff). As recommended, once my block expired, I asked JzG whether he would discuss my concerns about his conduct ( diff). Once again, he refused to do so ( diff) and suggested I am not welcome on Wikipedia. The topic has been controversial for years and there are no indications this is assuaging. The current problem goes beyond the article’s name or even whether discussion should have been curtailed: it involves problematic actions of users. Here are some of the accusations made: bad faith, bullying, disruption, personal attacks, being ‘pointy’, retaliatory blocking, sexism, ‘supervoting’ and ‘wheel-warring’. The discussion at ANI seemed unsuccessful and was criticised by editors. I believe arbitration is the only remaining possibility for editors’ actions to be investigated fully. Hopefully, this might also cause improvement of the general situation. Statement from AnthonyhcoleThe committee may want to address some of the behaviour here. Some of the comments around tendentious sexism on this site - including mine - have been beyond polite. I shall try to be more passive. But the OP seems to imply there is a problem with the article. The article is actually stable. Most users are content with the current title, though most would now, I think, go along with a move to Sarah Brown, and the move to that title will likely happen in a month or so. The noises on the talk page are coming from a small determined group of editors unhappy with the move away from Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and my sense of the mood on en.Wikipedia now is that it will never return to that title. I oppose any notion of closing down discussion on the topic, because in the long run it is best to just let the malcontents vent and whine until they tire and wander off. Literally censoring such discussions would feed the malcontents' sense of injustice and ultimately consume much more time and, anyway, would be inimical to our ethos of open discourse. The current, observed, temporary moratorium on move requests is sufficient. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Newyorkbrad
Statement by {further user 1}Ask JzG to apoligize if he was rude. Ask the IP to find something constructive to do. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by {further user 2}Clerk notes
Sarah Brown: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1/0>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
|
Seraphimblade, am I allowed to make a response to Beeblebrox (you would also be welcome to answer it, if you wished)? If so, please may you post the following?
Thank you for looking through this matter, Beeblebrox. You have written that the behavioural problems do not appear to be serious enough for an arbitration case. In that case, I would like to ask you what you think would be most appropriate for me.
I am disappointed and quite offended by some of the comments made to me by a couple of administrators. JzG has made multiple bad faith assumptions about me ( example example) whilst refusing to let me address his accusations, and DangerousPanda left an incredibly nasty message on my talk page ( diff). Being a good faith user wanting to work towards improving the encyclopedia with absolutely no intention or previous history of causing any trouble, I have found this behaviour very upsetting. It is worth noting that many users have been supportive of me, including users who disagreed with the contents of the move request, so it is not simply a case of my having a problem with everyone. An experienced user even wrote that he felt I was a 'victim of bullying'.
Because the comments were made by administrators after an ANI discussion, I do not feel comfortable pursuing the matter there. I simply do not know where else to go, other than choosing to leave Wikipedia altogether. Am I wrong to expect more from administrators, or should I just learn to accept these kinds of remarks? Please let me know if I can be of any help to you. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 01:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
In the list of declined requests, it lists the name and the outcome along with a diff of an edit that occurred at the time of rejection. But are these rejected requests archived anywhere? It seems like they should be but I've searched for one and I can only find it in the page history. Are rejected requests simply deleted from the page? It often happens that a requests relates to an accepted case (either a past case or one that is filed in the future) and it would be useful to have them available. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Are there any objections to making declined case requests archived and thus more accessible? Then, if a request is decline and later gets reproposed, there can be a link to a page rather than a link to an edit in the page's edit history. If WP:AFD can archive the tens of thousands of pages of discussion about deleting articles, it should be even more important to archive ARBCOM/AE case requests, whether they are accepted or declined. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Have the article naming case and the airport alternate name case been declined? Can they be archived or removed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there such a log? I am curious about the simple stat: how many cases are declined each year? Ah, found it at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. How about linking it from {{
ArbCom navigation}} which is already present on that page (thus suggesting somebody already considers this topic to be within its scope)? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It was suggested that I ask ArbCom their views on a proposal. Currently, at EDR, we have community-imposed and ArbCom-imposed topic bans. However, when an editor is t-banned as a result of WP:AE, the ban is properly logged on the case page but not at EDR. The problem is if an administrator wants to know if an editor is t-banned, in addition to looking at EDR, they theoretically would have to look at every ArbCom case that authorized such sanctions.
I propose adding a section to EDR for AE-imposed restrictions. It would be a little extra work for the admin imposing the sanctions as they'd have to log it in one more place, but it would make things much easier for admins in the future.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 10:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I am just having a WP:AE request thrown out on "procedural" ɡrounds, because apparently I failed to submit the required prior warnings in triple copies with the right kind of rubberstamp and on the correct latest version of the prescribed standard form [10]. Would those arbitrators who are responsible for having turned AE into this absurd parody of a bureaucracy please step forward so that I can punch them in the face? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
We know that disruptive editing on an article page that is covered by discretionary sanctions is subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions. My question is whether disruptive editing on a talk page for an article that is subject to discretionary sanctions is subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a question about discretionary sanctions. Is it too early to request that the article Chip Berlet be placed under the discretionary sanctions recommended by the pending case "American Politics"? I ask because we are seeing the behavior described in that case occurring on this BLP. Viriditas ( talk) 21:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a record of warnings made to the SPA that should be looked at by arbs. The account, 55 Gators ( talk · contribs) appears to be an obvious sock created solely to disrupt the BLP under discussion. I refer to him as Collect's little friend, because he always shows up when Collect needs help. [12]. An account used solely to malign a BLP should not be permitted to continue. It is sad that Collect has reached such depths, but this is one reason I am asking for an injunction as this ongoing behavior is identical to the issues raised in the current American politics case. Although there are many diffs to review, two of the most egregious illustrate the explicit tag teaming between the SPA and Collect: [13] [14] Viriditas ( talk) 22:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It has become impossible to contribute to the wikipedia. There is a circle of regular users and admins who know each other. Some users like me are just interested in contributing to wikipedia and are not interested in entering this circle. So when non-circle user like me complain about behaviour of this circle member, the circle either ignores it or find some edit to ridicule, warn, ban or block non-circle users. Last year a admin followed me, got involved in content dispute, threatened me of topic ban on Gujarat articles [15] and eventually managed it on the strength of circle members. [16] This year also, another admin accused me of lie, POV editing and threatened me to step away from LGBT articles. [17] When I went to ANI to seek help [18], a non-admin circle member closed thread. [19] Now I came here and noticed that arbitration committee members are also admins, they are also circle members. Whole structure of wikipedia sounds like a police state where police/judiciary, chosen by rich citizens, twist laws and beat up poor citizens. Is there any executive branch on wikipedia to seek help against injustice or is it time to say goodbye to wikipedia? Abhi ( talk) 05:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I am going to reply to this reply of User:Serialjoepsycho here. I removed unsourced material from Lesbian Association of India as per WP:VERIFY which doesn't talk about article blanking. But now I learned about WP:BLANK and as per this policy, I admit, it was mistake to blank the article. But admin Bgwhite could have simply reverted my edit citing WP:BLANK. He insisted that article is well-sourced and accused me of lie, POV editing and threatened me to step away from LGBT articles. [20] [21] When other editors pointed out that article is not sourced and no reliable sources exists, he is now supporting AfD of another editor. [22] One year ago, admin Qwyrxian managed to ban me on basis that I called their peer-reviewed academic sources as 'crap'. [23] Now one year later another admin threatens to ban me for opposite reason saying that peer-reviewed academic source are not necessary. [24] Why these psycho admins abuse admin powers, twist policies to insert their material in articles? And what POV editing I was doing? I had touched LGBT articles only 2 days ago and had edited only 3 articles. Perhaps Bgwhite was referring to my ban on 'politics and religion in Gujarat'. How LGBT topic is related to 'politics and religion in Gujarat' topic? And why use past punishment, long expired ban to label user as 'forever criminal' to downplay and revert his edits?
And what POV editing I did on Gujarat articles? Last year I had disagreement with admin Qwyrxian and user The Rahul Jain on Jain articles. I abandoned, forgot that disagreement and moved on to 2002 Gujarat riots. User:Darkness Shines had replaced this whole highly controversial subject article ignoring my request to discuss on article talkpage. I repeat, whole controversial article was replaced by contents of single user who had been blocked multiple times. These admin Qwyrxian and user The Rahul Jain followed me on 2002 Gujarat riots and started supporting replacement of user Darkness Shines to take revenge on me. I had attempted to include my material in only one edit on only one gujarat related articles. I had 6 reverts to restore previous version of article and contents of admin Utcursh, not my material. [25] Then I had promised that I won't edit war and I will user every option on wikipedia to resolve dispute. [26] But still psychotic admin Qwyrxian went to AC/DS to block my dispute resolution process. But that is not all. As this admin has filed ban request, I thought that it is my moral obligation not to touch any Gujarat related articles until decision is made. [27] Now another psychotic admin Edjohnston came into picture. He interpreted my self-imposed moral obligation as declaration of edit war on Gujarat related articles and imposed 3 months of blanket ban on me for all Gujarat related articles.
Wikipedia is classic case of how social insanity spreads, like that in Lord of the Flies, in absence of guiding, independent and powerful executive leadership. Admins, regular users know each other like friends. So when new user complain against some member of this circle, instead of disciplinary action and introspection, this circle launches witch-hunt against reporting new user to eliminate him from contributing to wikipedia. These Arbitration Committee members are also admins. It is not independent governing body. I can't expect them to act against their own friends. So I think, for new users or non-circle users, all ways to contribute to wikipedia are closed. That's against founding principles of wikipedia. But does anybody care these days?
(PS- I won't be surprised if some circle member remove this edit because of my 'psychotic' words for involved admins or for some other reason. I think their actions are psychotic and I stand by it. Goodbye.) Abhi ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
How can I tell if anyone is working on this request? [30] There have been comments by admins Sandstein and EdJohnston, but I'm not sure where the request stands at this time. Scalhotrod made a lengthy reply, though none of it addresses the diffs I gave with my original request (which was under 500 words). Since then, I have asked some questions:
Today, he has accused me of POV editing on another article talk page. [33]
Please help. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've begun a thread on discussing possible changes to ARBPIA on the matter of socks, if those interested in the matter could join the discussion that would be great. Sepsis II ( talk) 03:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that the problem isn't socks but rather another Zeq/CAMERA-type episode. This would very much be an arbitration-related matter. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think that all articles covered by sanctions like ARBPIA should be permanently semi-protected. It is "against Wikipedia philosophy" but the area is now pretty mature and the majority of new editors are not up to any good. Semi-protection would not prevent socking, but would slow it down a great deal.
Zero
talk 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I would propose a change to the 1RR attached to this case. Standard 1RR rules would still apply, in addition the part of the article reverted can not be reverted more than once per 24 hours by any editor unless there is a consensus to do so. A clear consensus with a valid reason to do so and not a majority vote. The only exemption of course being the current exemptions already in place for 1RR and 3RR. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 05:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I know that if you mention somebody at ANI you're supposed to inform them. I'm guessing the same is true of ArbCom. Is there a standard notification template to do this? If so, where is it mentioned on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
subst:arbcom notice}}
but I got the impression that it was for notifying the defendant(s), not for those only tangentially involved. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering
Redrose64's observation, I have worked up a simple modification that accommodates notification for persons mentioned in a case, but not listed as a party. If the Committee would please review the test case @ {{
Arbcom notice/testcases}}
and voice any objections that may arise, I would appreciate the feedback. Additionally, if better ideas emerge, I am happy yielding to the better way. Also, I am willing to edit the main template and update its documentation without qualm, or observe its implementation by another. I am equally fine if the suggestion is rejected, though I believe in has merit. Cheers.—
John Cline (
talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can an Admin remove the comments of Collect and Capitalismojo from this AR: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sue Rangell. They appear to be against Decorum as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. Lightbreather ( talk) 02:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I was told that, when notifying an editor that discretionary sanctions are in effect, I am supposed to log that notice. Where is that done? Am I supposed to edit the case decision, which I thought was limited after closure to arbs and clerks? I had thought, maybe incorrectly, that the edit filter would do that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I was also told that I should only notify an editor of discretionary sanctions if there may have been misconduct on their part. Is that correct? If so, that should be clarified, and is not consistent with the wording of the template. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
That all sounds about right to me. When exactly to notify has been the subject of some debate, but the primary thing is that an "alert" is only an alert to the fact that they are editing in an area that is subject to DS. It is like a warning sign on a road, there to alert you to the oresence of a hazard. It is explicitly not a judgement on the quality of their contributions. And SQ is right that anyone may alert anyone else (assuming no other restrictions are already in place on them) to the presence of DS. When done properly it should be more like "hey be careful there buddy, there's rocks in the road up ahead" than "hey you drive like an idiot". Some people will take it the wrong way regardless though, that's just human nature. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm presenting this in the right forum, but I have a suggestion. When presenting the final results on a request for enforcement, it would be good to have those results qualified, much as they are in an ArbCom itself.
I noticed in the Gun control ArbCom, under Findings of fact, each involved party was named, and then the policies they'd broken were listed, with diffs to the edits that broke each policy. Like this:
JohnParker
JohnWhorfin
And so on. It's very clear exactly what they were being sanctioned for. That would be a good thing to have in enforcement requests that end in sanctions, I think.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 appointments to AUSC are now open. The AUSC is an ArbCom body that inspects and regulates the use of CheckUser and Oversight.
All administrators are eligible to volunteer this year. To volunteer, read WP:AUSC to understand the role; the appointments page to understand the process; then email the committee with a nomination statement. You will be presented for community comments and a Q&A in August.
Questions are very welcome on any arbitrator's talk page, or by email.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK
[•] 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the boxes "Wikipedia Arbitration" and "Arbitration Committee Proceedings":
"Recently Closed Cases" is misnamed because it links, as far as I can see, to all historical cases, even those closed a long time ago.
Duplicate, overlapping, and slightly-differently-worded links to the same information, overlapping information, or different presentation of the same information is confusing. There should be exactly one clear link to every relevant sub-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.7.119 ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am expected to appeal my restrictions in the Infoboxes case, so said Nikkimaria who seems to follow me everywhere. I will not meet the expectation. I came to like my restrictions so much that I decided that I can live and die with them (look for red on my user page). Sometimes I walk away after two comments to a discussion even if I don't have to. It saves time. - I try to stick to the restriction of not adding an infobox to an article that I didn't create, however sometimes I remember the work I put into an article so well that I forget that I didn't "create" it, for example Victor Bruns, Polish Requiem, Richard Adeney, - apologies. - Can we perhaps invent a template explaining for our readers: "This composition by Penderecki has no infobox - as other of his compositions - because the main contributor is restricted"?
On Canadian Independence Day, Nikkimaria made an edit that I didn't understand, out of the blue collapsing three items of information in a long established infobox and removing details. I don't know why. It's one of these discussions where I walked away. Is that the expected behaviour with a "level of professionalism" mentioned in the decision? - Dreaming of a bit more egalité, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.
Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.
Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.
If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.
For the Arbitration Committee, WormTT( talk) 10:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If I template an editor with {{subst:Ds/alert|ee}} , it doesn't display Eastern Europe as the area of the discretionary sanctions. (It does display it correctly if the area is Pseudoscience). Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
A case request is currently pending. An editor changed the name of the requested case. Another editor (not a clerk or arbitrator) reverted the name, stating that only clerks and arbitrators should change the name of a case request, stating that the change was disruptive. (I concur that the change was disruptive.) My question is whether the ArbCom and its clerks agree. Is changing the name of a case request after it is filed and before it is accepted or declined disruptive? (I am aware that sometimes the arbs change a case name.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The instructions for WP:ARCA read "This is not a discussion. You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private. Do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."
Similarly the WP:RFAR instructions read "Compose your request or statement in your user space or an off-line text editor before posting it here. This busy page is not the place to work up drafts."
Per Seraphimblade [38] Making a draft appeal of a topic ban in userspace is itself a technical violation of the topic ban.
In my opinion this discrepancy should be corrected either by updating the instructions, or WP:BANEX to expand the exception for composing a draft. Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I am and have been concerned and appalled by the response and treatment editors receive on arb clarifications. Seraphimblade has declined Momento's appeal based on a reading of sanction rules that is at best confusing. How is it that an editor can post to a clarification as instructed to on the clarification page and be reprimanded for that or to have posted in a sandbox unaware that this was not allowed under the ban and have his appeal declined because he posted in his sandbox. Seraphimblade says himself many editors are unaware of these restrictions, yet Momento is accused of poor judgement and his appeal declined in effect, for what he doesn't know. A further real issue is that editors asking for clarification or explanation during an appeal are ignored when they do try to understand or figure out what to do next. Momento has received no reply from Seraphimblade despite questions on how to proceed.
I have the greatest respect for the arbs and the difficult jobs they do. However, if arbs do not have the time to operate an arb clarification properly, to explore the issues in an in-depth way that is fair and respects the editors, all of the editors requesting a hearing, then get rid of it. Let editors know that AE is as far as they can go. We have a system of dispute resolution at the AE level right now that can easily be manipulated. One admin makes the sanction while other friends to that admin can be called in to support. While patrolling AE is tough, and those who do the job are to be thanked, abuse is easily possible. Ask me how many times the same editor took me to AE and how often the same editors or known allies came in to sanction. So its important for editors to know they have some place to appeal, but, If that appeal isn't dealt with carefully; its hurtful and damaging. Again, if it can't be done properly, don't do it.
There is a lot of talk about what damages Wikipedia. What damages Wikipedia is how we treat people. In my own case I have experienced bias and bigotry, lies and mis representation, the creation of narratives that have nothing to do with me or who I am, and I know many who have experienced the same. Civility in a collaborative community is about how we treat each other, what we can do for the others in the community so they can give the most of themselves and their abilities. Even SPA editors should be respected; they often have expertise others do not. We don't all have the same abilities, education, or experience. (And by the way if we have a Nobel Laureate working on Wikipedia, help him learn the ropes. We need him). I was willing to walk away from my own Arb clarification debacles for numerous reasons, but seeing someone else treated to the same has made me very angry.
An arbitrator, and this isn't about Seraphimbalde, has to be willing to look in depth and have the time to do so, and if they are wrong they have to have both the courage and humility to say so. I always feel fine about a mistake admitted and corrected and feel privileged to work with someone who has that kind of personal courage and integrity. That should be the WP editor model and I suspect would go along way towards retaining editors.
Momento asked for a hearing of his case. I was there on the Prem Rawat article at the time of the original sanction, in a relatively uninvolved capacity, watching closely, and I think a mistake was made, maybe several. Jimbo was commenting about the article, there was pressure and bingo, editors were sanctioned even as their behaviour was improving and on the upswing. Understandable, even if unfair. But at the least, could the arbs in Momento's appeal answer the questions and deal with the specifics in depth, respecting Momento as a human being and acting in a capacity that indicates the arbitration committee sees the arb clarification process as as an official way to appeal a perceived mistake. If the process isn't meant to be useful, let's get rid of it now.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC))
I have observed that nearly all of the previously decided arbitration cases have shortcut abbreviations, such as WP:ARBPIA for the highly contentious Palestine- Israel- Arab case. I didn't see a shortcut for the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics case. Was there one? Since shortcuts don't appear to be reserved to arbitrators and clerks, I went ahead (as per WP:BOLD) and added WP:ARBAP. If that was incorrect, someone can fix it. (As November 2014 approaches, it may be necessary to put a few topics under discretionary sanctions due to left-right crossfire, and the motion remedy is timely because it permits action during the election season without waiting two months for a full case hearing.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In WP:ARBAP, the Arbitration Committee stated that new topic areas within American politics could be placed under discretionary sanctions without the need for full cases, by motion. However, motions can only be made by arbitrators or recorded by clerks. Is a request to extend discretionary sanctions made as a request for amendment to WP:ARBAP? Is it necessary to include all of the edit-warriors in the amendment request? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Two requests under WP:ARBAP to extend discretionary sanctions had the same title (except for case, which is often folded). This could cause problems in cross-referencing later. I was WP:BOLD and expanded the names of the headings by adding parenthetical phrases (Kentucky Senate election) and (Dinesh D'Souza films). If this was incorrect, a clerk can revert the changes and possibly disambiguate in some other way. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Roger Davies et al., regarding the Misconduct request, can diffs from formal mediation be used in an opening statement and presented as evidence in the evidence phase (e.g., diff1, diff2)? I thought formal mediation was privileged communication. If so, these should be cleaned up before we go much further. Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering why "31 hours" has been mentioned by two arbitrators as a better solution than an arb case. IS this a magic number? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC).
I don't want to get in trouble for bringing this to the wrong place. Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, a debate on the loose use of term "TERF" (Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminist) has cropped up repeatedly in threads at Radical feminism.
Because the term is often used in death threats like "Die terf scum" on social media sites and in harassing emails (evidence will be presented when necessary), women editors may find it intimidating to see it loosely bandied about on Wikipedia talk pages regarding individuals mentioned in articles. And they also may fear it will be used against them should they support a more NPOV presentation. (See August 2014 New Yorker article for details of harassment women face on this issue.) I don't want to ask for sanctions against editors, just a ruling that the term should not be used except strictly and carefully regarding use in articles as described by RS. So where's the best place?? Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if this is actually a behavioural issue since what is at issue is the talk pages and not article content. Perhaps another look at the request would be in order or some advice. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 19:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC))
I was unaware of this thread and have already started a request for clarification regarding this issue which can be found here. My apologies for the overlap. If I am in error or posted the request in the wrong place, please let me know or remedy the issue for me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The term is an obvious slur, and I'm willing to block any editor using it outside the description of what it is. Dreadstar ☥ 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I have filed a case request, and have been advised to add other editors as parties to the case. Should I (as filing party) go ahead and do this by adding the {{userlinks}} or {{admin}} things to the case header and the statement sections to the request, or should I just leave the case request as it is? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether I placed my new request in the wrong place. The instructions say to place the request template "below the first header" when editing–which I thought I had done, though the page is showing a repeated, red-bordered "To make an arbitration case request:" instruction block. I'm unsure whether it is supposed to have that block repeated, and apologies if my insertion broke something. • Astynax talk 02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Checking my watchlist after coming back from holiday, I was surprised to see that Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough was still open. The case was created 5 weeks ago and nobody has commented (I think) for the last 28 days. Forgive my ignorance if this is covered somewhere in published processes, but are time limits defined for stale cases, or does this come down to committee members stating that a case should be closed? -- Fæ ( talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the Arbitration Committee essentially a court of law? Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 22:56, 3 October 2014 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Ubie the guru ( talk · contribs) has made three edits, two to AE and the other to Talk:SodaStream, also related to I/P issues. There's not enough here for a SPI, and none of the edits individually is a problem. Even so -- WP:ILLEGIT probably applies. Any thoughts on whether/how to approach it? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell: if you want to discuss the conduct of other editors, please file a separate request against name individuals; I will happily evaluate it with the same open mind as I have this request, and I will personally sanction anyone whose misconduct is brought to my attention, but sweeping assertions against a large group of editors are not relevant to the request against Gilabrand.
HJ Mitchell: Everybody: Please keep your comments concise, on-topic, and restricted to whether or not Gilabrand's conduct is acceptable. Again, if you want the conduct of others examined, please file a separate request against named editors, providing diffs. The next person who posts assertions without providing evidence will be blocked.
Georgewilliamherbert: So, here's my fear. Irrespective of Gilabrand's specifics, if we draw a new line where people seem to want to, my read is that almost everyone (excepting Nishidani) who filed complaints this time gets topic banned when we come around to enforcing that line in a fair and even manner.
I understand that this area is impossibly frustrating for administrators to deal with, and I understand the temptation to dismiss everyone who edits in the area as beyond salvation (except for Nishidani, we agree there), but I don't see how it's helpful to do so in such a broad fashion as Georgewilliamherbert has done here, especially without specifics.
More generally, one unintended consequence of ARBPIA has been for problematic editing on the subject to become ever subtler as older methods of POV-pushing are identified, articulated, and sanctioned. I don't see how this request draws a new line, but even if it does, it's a line that needs to be drawn. Georgewilliamherbert's fear that everyone but Nishidani will be topic-banned is probably not likely to come to pass, as editors will learn to conform as they have in the past, and that will help the encyclopedia. If they can't figure out how to conform, well, then, having all these articles written by Nishidani probably wouldn't be such a bad thing.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 17:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
‘There is no better example of the eradication of all traces of an entire civilization from the landscape –leaving behind only Crusader remains, which did not interfere with the conventiently chosen historical narrative- than the restoration of Kokhav Hayarden ( Kawkab al-Hawa, the Crusader Belvoir) and Caesarea. At those two sites the Arab structures were removed and the Crusader buildings were restored and made into tourist attractions. In the Israeli context, it is preferable to immortalize those who exterminated the Jewish communities of Europe (in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries) and murdered the Jews in Jerusalem in 1099 than to preserve relics of the local Arab civilization with which today’s Israelis must supposedly coexist. Crusader structures, both authentic and fabricated, lend a European, romantic character to the country’s landscape, whereas Arab buildings spoil the myth of an occupied land under foreign rule, awaiting liberation at the hands of the Jews returning to their homeland.’ Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since, 2002, University of California Press, 2002 p.303
I think there should be some procedure developed for rapidly dismissing certain case requests. A request that was just added is one of many examples where anyone knowledgeable about the process who looks at the request can tell you it will be declined unanimously. The dispute is in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, there is no indication of any meaningful dispute resolution, and it is launched by a user who was clearly either not aware of other venues more suited for this type of request or confused RFAR with one of those venues. Certain requests are just inevitably going to be declined for obvious reasons and there should be a way for this to happen quickly to minimize any potential for drama that such requests bring about.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've boldly tweaked the wording of the first sentence of the project page. My reason for doing this is that lately I've noticed that many users are unclear about the difference between arbitration and mediation. They seem to believe that formal mediation is simply the last step before taking a case to arbitration. We continually have to repeat the refrain that these are two separate forms of dispute resolution—arbitration for conduct disputes and mediation for content disputes. My hope is that the revised wording will clarify the two different streams of dispute resolution and thus help to head off this sort of forum shopping. Of course, if I've introduced some new absurdity, please revise, revert, or otherwise adjust my wording. Sunray ( talk) 18:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Original clarification request
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 Someone not using his real name ( talk) at 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Apparently Toddst1 was desysopped in some drama I have not followed closely, and consequently Holdek (originally blocked by Toddst1) was unblocked (by Worm that Turned/ArbCom). Holdek now seems to claim that his block for socking was overturned [1]. Has the committee decided that Holdek was not socking? Someone not using his real name ( talk) 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: Worm That Turned, in his rather convoluted write-up there, does not clearly say there whether he thinks Holdek was not socking (to harass Ymblanter). Also, I want to know if this was a committee decision. The "not socking" IP is still blocked for about two years, by the way [2]. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I have made an unblock request so that the IP's block log, where my username is mentioned as "clearly a sock" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=68.50.128.91&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1), is updated. I'm not sure if that was the best venue to make the request, but I couldn't find any instructions for an alternative. Holdek ( talk) 20:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Update: Request was accepted on March 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:68.50.128.91&diff=598082168&oldid=598006520. Holdek ( talk) 21:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
When will the Arbitration Committee start work on a decision in the Gun Control case? A decision was planned on 12 February 2014, and it is now March. I realize that the ArbCom has been asked to handle a lot of secondary issues such as clarifications and discretionary sanctions reviews. However, the two open cases have been long-simmering disputes in which conduct issues have made resolution of content issues difficult. If the ArbCom doesn't have time or resources to complete the cases, would it be possible to impose discretionary sanctions by temporary injunction? When will decisions on these two open cases start being worked? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've been having quite a few issues both editing the wiki and viewing diffs (both very frequently resulting in page timeouts), which unfortunately makes writing a decision rather impossible. The Wikimedia sysadmins are, to the best of my knowledge, already aware that this problem exists and has been affecting many users. I've been having much better luck this week, and am hoping for that to continue. If so, we'll get this finished up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
The general provisions are sufficiently widely drawn to cover it, GWH. It's an entirely appropriate use of DS; disputants frequently swamp (or attempt to swamp) DR pages to influence the outcome. Roger Davies talk 10:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In a recently closed AE request, the tone of many of the comments from other editors was unacceptable; in particular, several editors attempted to use the AE thread to attack other individuals (whether by name or by implication) or attempted cast aspersions against broad groups of editors whom they consider to be their "opponents". Towards the end of the request, I took a harder line on such comments by removing unsupported allegations, personal attacks, and general slurs, and blocked two editors. I'd like to see other admins take a similar zero-tolerance approach to such conduct, and I'd like the instructions and editnotice for AE to be very explicit that such conduct is likely to result in blocks. Filing an AE request does not give your "opponents" license to attack you or cast aspersions regarding your motives, and if we treat it as such, it will have a chilling effect on future reports. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Editors should be warned that their behaviour is uncivil and warrants a block. Nice, polite, and uncivil can for many people be synonymous. Do not assume editors know they have crossed the line especially in high voltage situations. That warning may be that the first uncivil comment is removed with a warning to the editor who posted it, another uncivil comment from the same user would warrant a block And Admins should be consistent. If incivility is going to be sanctioned on AE it must be for all users, not just some. As long as sanctions are handed out inconsistently there will be misunderstanding about what is allowed and what isn't and incivility on all of the boards will never stop. This might extend to RfA s where incivility is rampant. Incivility is meant to allow for collaboration and smooth functioning; sanctioning some editors, while others get away with such behaviours has the same end product as if no one is sanctioned at all - a poisonous environment rather than a smooth functioning one. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 23:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC))
Yes I understand; thanks, my point was a response to HJMitchel's points. The problem with blocking people for making allegations with out proof is where do we draw the line on what is proof. Where is the proof in an AE request itself, without diffs, that alleges wrong doing. Where is proof in evidence that is presented that does not support what is being said, that presents false information. In the end it seems to me that incivility is only the red flag that demands scrutiny be paid to the comment. But what about the bigger issue, that AE itself and how it is conducted is not consistent for all editors.That a heated comment with out diffs is not the big issue and may be actual expressions of frustration with those bigger issues. seems we are blocking editors for the smaller issues and ignoring the bigger issues. The bigger issue is treating editors unfairly, that there are rules for some editors that don't apply to others, that diffs can be presented that do not support allegations, that may be out and out lies. The editors who have experience on AE know better than to raise a red flag and draw attention to their motives, and may be expert baiters. I know AE is a tough job. I believe it has to revamped.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC))
So does anyone actually object to this hard line being taken on unsupported accusations at AE? Remember it applies to everyone, whether the unsupported accusations are made civilly or otherwise, and does not affect people being independently sanctioned for civility issues. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yet another week has gone by since the last vague assurances that this case was actually being dealt with - and still we have seen nothing. Why not? What is preventing ArbCom from carrying out the job they were elected for? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Enough. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is a legitimate question, and deserves an answer. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I had no problem with the question, but continuing the same sniping which has been going on on the case pages is the reason I closed it. Probably should have made that clear, but I'm glad it didn't turn into that again. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
At the Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment, I see that editor Cirt was told that his contributions to q:Scientology were a reason for him never to be allowed to have restrictions here loosened. Now I know that in some cases off-wiki harassment is admissible, and administrative action on other wikis might be admissible, but does this process really need to allow one moment of criticism in a quickly resolved dispute on another wiki to be taken into evidence and re-litigated here? (or more to the point, litigated here for the first time since it never came to that on Wikiquote) It is inevitable that when editors on a Wiki contribute a huge amount of very useful content, as Cirt did about the Erhard Seminars Training, that there will be a few quotes that someone else thinks are a bit irrelevant or need to be trimmed down. If your standard is simply whether anyone has ever complained, there is no way Cirt could meet it without following a topic ban on Wikiquote that you did not take the opportunity to order.
It seems to me this is an executive level organization, making executive level decisions, and it has the duty either to systematically review the contributions of every editor coming before it on every Wiki (which it doesn't have the time to do), or to admit it can't do so and refer (at most) to the executive decisions of those other Wikis (such as the willingness of Wikiquote and several other projects to retain Cirt as an administrator in good standing, without sanction). Wnt ( talk) 12:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong views regarding gun control, because I don't think the evidence is clear one way or another as to whether it reduces crime. But this stuff about Nazis continues to embarrass the community. VirtuallyNo reliable academic sources believe the Holocaust was in any way about gun control. Virtually no academic articles on the Holocaust describe it as entailing gun control, and no academic articles/encyclopedia entries on gun control describe the Holocaust as an example of it. Yet this rubbish has been given a prominent place in the gun control article for months with no admin intervention.
In a tortured literal sense of the term, one can say the Nazis practiced "gun control". Similarly, one can say that laws disarming toddlers, violent criminals, and prisoners violate "gun rights." (And that white immigrants from Africa are African Americans.) This sort of use of language, while technically correct in some literal sense, is completely out of accord with the academic and colloquial meaning of words. It should be excluded from Wikipedia because context matters.
How has it taken the Committee so long to put a stop to this? Any educated person can see that the 'Holocaust=gun control' stuff is POV-pushing rubbish and a smear campaign. It utterly fails WP:RS, WP:V, and other basic community principles. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
And, speaking strictly for myself, I am willing to cut some slack to an editor who's trying to insure that content on Wikipedia complies with our policies and occasionally loses his cool, especially when faced with civil pov-pushers or with wikilawyers.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Wikipedia ought to have a body of experts elected by the community and tasked with making binding content decisions when the community is for any reasons incapable of making them. Unfortunately, we currently don't have such a body and ArbCom is prevented from fulfilling that role because we don't have either the legitimation nor (and, again, I'm speaking only for myself) the competence.
Also, erm, I am already an arbitrator, although my term is due to expire in nine months... But thanks. ;-). Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, right or wrong, the whole clear reason for requesting the Arbcom case was for the content and/or policy-on-content question, and they took the case. Although there were (are?) also some significant behavioral (abuse of editors) problems making the article unnecessarily nasty and painful (and which could use some action) and others in the case itself, those were not even in the reasons for the request for an Arbcom case. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As "talk page probation"? I know there is probation for articles, but many time the real problem is the talk page and the way discussions quickly become heated and also the way many editors will add walls of text or discuss the general subject as a tactic to fill up the talk page and move discussion away from proposed changes and suggestions. If there is such a "probation" I was wondering if I could be directed to one as an example and if there is not...how do we begin such a proposal?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
For the past several months, I have faced a continuous mudslinging campaign by a group of users in Wikipedia. These users do not respect interaction bans placed by the committee, resorting to
WP:IDHT and
WP:MEAT in order to continue what is an apparent tag-team attempt at wearing me down (if not to bully me away from the project altogether).
I have asked the arbitrators (
[5]) and community (
[6]) for help, and have received some assistance from administrators, but up to now nothing concrete has been done to prevent these individuals from continuing their
battleground behavior towards me (most recently
[7]). These users have been warned to cease
their uncivil behavior, but the matter continues from one point or the other (this is where the tag-team becomes important).
It seems to me that these editors consider themselves superior to the arbitration committee's ruling (and the opinion of administrators), because of their featured contributions on specialized content. While their contributions may be noteworthy, their arrogant demeanor has caused constant problems (including this imagined sense of superiority over other editors such as myself).
This situation is absolutely absurd. We're all for the most part volunteers in this project, and I myself have also contributed a handful of valuable featured and good article content to the encyclopedia.
All I expect in return is to be treated with the same amount of respect as any other individual deserves in the encyclopedia. I request that the Arbitration Committee please do something about this problem.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards.--
MarshalN20
Talk 05:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Coincidentally, this topic of bullying in Wikipedia has also been a recent topic of discussion at Jimbo's talk page (see [8]). Within that context, my case is part of a long list. Abusive conduct must not be tolerated in Wikipedia. There is no amount of Featured Article stars that can provide any users with impunity. Regars.-- MarshalN20 Talk 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
When will working draft proposed decisions on these cases be started? Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Where does Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment get archived? I'm not finding it in any of these searchable archiveboxes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we please have a Search box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, so that the many links of the form /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Toddst1 don't lead to a dead end?
I finally figured out that I could use the second search box on this page, but my proposal stands. Let's add just that second box to the main page; 2009 was a long time ago. Y/N? -- Elvey ( talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We're more than two months overdue on a proposed decision for the Gun Control case. Can we please have an updated estimate, as well as an explanation what's taking so long? I really think the arbitrators owe this to the community that elected them to arbitrate disputes. I know there were some technical problems, but I was under the impression they had been fixed and did not account for two months of delay. The last time I remember a case being this delayed was before proposed decision due dates were introduced at the so-called Omnibus Case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Having all the arb talk pages converge, breaks the wiki because talk page comments do not show up on watchlists. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
This page in a nutshell: Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles. Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee have authorised their use. |
Discretionary sanctions may be authorised either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by committee motion. When it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor at ARCA or of its own initiative. Unless the committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding the authorisation all sanctions remain in force.
A log of the areas of conflict for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised is maintained at the discretionary sanctions main page.
Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:
Any editor whose edits do not meet these requirements may wish to restrict their editing to other topics in order to avoid the possibility of sanctions.
Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct.
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:
Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{ Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. An alert:
As {{ Ds/alert}} template is part of this procedure, it may be modified only with the committee's explicit consent.
Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
When deciding whether to sanction an editor, and which sanctions may be appropriate, the enforcing administrator’s objective should be to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles. To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum.
While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not:
Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.
To act in enforcement, an administrator must at all relevant times have their access to the tools enabled. Former administrators – that is, editors who have temporarily or permanently relinquished the tools or have been desysopped – may neither act as administrators in arbitration enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions.
Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.
Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.
Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.
When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE. For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; nor to enforce discretionary sanction beyond their reasonable scope.
The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process. The enforcing administrator must also log the sanction.
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ ds/editnotice}}).
Should any editor ignore or breach any sanction placed under this procedure, that editor may, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, receive a fresh further sanction. The further sanction must be logged on the appropriate page and the standard appeal arrangements apply.
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry. While sanctions and page restrictions are not invalidated by a failure to log, repeated failure to log may result in sanctions. The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee.
[reserved for the Standard appeals and modifications provision]
Nothing in this current version of the discretionary sanctions process constitutes grounds for appeal of a remedy or restriction imposed under prior versions of it.
All sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier versions of this process remain in force. Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions and become alerts for twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure, then expire.
Appeals open at the time this version is adopted will be handled using the prior appeals procedure, but this current process will thereafter govern appeals.
Proposed: That the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure above supersedes and replaces all prior discretionary sanction provisions with immediate effect;
"Standard Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are authorised for the area of conflict, namely any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace"
The administrator instructions page is deprecated and replaced with a redirect to the main Discretionary sanctions page."Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." and case pages/case templates are to be updated accordingly.
Proposed: That the housekeeping provisions be implemented with immediate effect;
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Important notes:
Proposed: That the updated Appeals and modifications provision become the standard provision and replace all prior discretionary sanction appeal provisions with immediate effect;
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 attempting to submit an arbitration request, but I am unable to do so because I am not a registered user. I should be appreciative if someone could copy my request to the main page once I have finished preparing it. I shall update this message once it is ready.
Update: I believe everything is now ready. I have completed the template. I am sorry I could not post it myself. Also, please close the below section: I feel bad that it is taking up so much room on the talk page. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 03:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 03:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone who is topic banned engaged today in some behavior that I think is a questionable. [9] Where do I discuss that? Lightbreather ( talk) 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Case copied to main case page. To the anonymous 131. editor, if you have additional comments to make, please request assistance from an arbitrator or clerk on this page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by 131.111.185.66 ( talk) at 03:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Involved partiesI have included users whose involvement went beyond a simple vote. That is not to say that all of the below users are involved in the problematic edits.
Statement by 131.111.185.66The name of this article is contentious. During move request 7, there was consensus against the move, though multiple users suggested an alternative title ( diff diff diff). After studying policy, I concluded there was a strong case for this. Following advice ( diff), I closed the request ( diff) and made a good faith request to this title ( diff). From previous comments, I recognised this might be controversial. Despite this, I believed most editors could act sensibly. Some users resorted to argumentative posts ( diff diff diff). Ninety minutes after discussion began, JzG (Guy) closed it (two supports and four opposes) ( diff). He suggested he did not realise I closed the previous request early so the more favoured name could be discussed. Due to this mistake, I reverted and left a message for him ( diff). He was rude and uncommunicative, telling me to ‘talk to the hand’ ( diff). Not long afterwards, Drmies closed the discussion (four supports and seven opposes) with a biased summary ( diff). He also changed the lead of the article ( diff). I was blocked by JzG, who had not attempted discussion with me, for these reverts. After learning more, I recognise I should not have reverted, no matter how I felt. I mistakenly believed I was entitled to three reverts, especially for edits that seemed to contravene guidelines for closing active discussions. Had an editor warned me, then my actions would have been entirely different. I also did not know JzG or Drmies were administrators. JzG attacked my editing history ( diff). Other than one controversial matter (which was decided in my favour and where I tried afterwards to resolve my differences with the other editor), I have never been involved in disputes. DangerousPanda left an upsetting and offensive message for me ( diff). After I was blocked, discussion continued on the talk page and at ANI, where editors discussed whether the request should continue. After at least four more pairs of closes and reversions, JzG closed the request ( diff), with there being six supports at ANI for a close and five opposes. He created a ban on discussion and threatened to block editors who broke this ( diff diff). General discussion continued in hope of an improvement. Problems remain and progress is difficult ( diff diff diff diff). As recommended, once my block expired, I asked JzG whether he would discuss my concerns about his conduct ( diff). Once again, he refused to do so ( diff) and suggested I am not welcome on Wikipedia. The topic has been controversial for years and there are no indications this is assuaging. The current problem goes beyond the article’s name or even whether discussion should have been curtailed: it involves problematic actions of users. Here are some of the accusations made: bad faith, bullying, disruption, personal attacks, being ‘pointy’, retaliatory blocking, sexism, ‘supervoting’ and ‘wheel-warring’. The discussion at ANI seemed unsuccessful and was criticised by editors. I believe arbitration is the only remaining possibility for editors’ actions to be investigated fully. Hopefully, this might also cause improvement of the general situation. Statement from AnthonyhcoleThe committee may want to address some of the behaviour here. Some of the comments around tendentious sexism on this site - including mine - have been beyond polite. I shall try to be more passive. But the OP seems to imply there is a problem with the article. The article is actually stable. Most users are content with the current title, though most would now, I think, go along with a move to Sarah Brown, and the move to that title will likely happen in a month or so. The noises on the talk page are coming from a small determined group of editors unhappy with the move away from Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), and my sense of the mood on en.Wikipedia now is that it will never return to that title. I oppose any notion of closing down discussion on the topic, because in the long run it is best to just let the malcontents vent and whine until they tire and wander off. Literally censoring such discussions would feed the malcontents' sense of injustice and ultimately consume much more time and, anyway, would be inimical to our ethos of open discourse. The current, observed, temporary moratorium on move requests is sufficient. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Newyorkbrad
Statement by {further user 1}Ask JzG to apoligize if he was rude. Ask the IP to find something constructive to do. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by {further user 2}Clerk notes
Sarah Brown: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1/0>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
|
Seraphimblade, am I allowed to make a response to Beeblebrox (you would also be welcome to answer it, if you wished)? If so, please may you post the following?
Thank you for looking through this matter, Beeblebrox. You have written that the behavioural problems do not appear to be serious enough for an arbitration case. In that case, I would like to ask you what you think would be most appropriate for me.
I am disappointed and quite offended by some of the comments made to me by a couple of administrators. JzG has made multiple bad faith assumptions about me ( example example) whilst refusing to let me address his accusations, and DangerousPanda left an incredibly nasty message on my talk page ( diff). Being a good faith user wanting to work towards improving the encyclopedia with absolutely no intention or previous history of causing any trouble, I have found this behaviour very upsetting. It is worth noting that many users have been supportive of me, including users who disagreed with the contents of the move request, so it is not simply a case of my having a problem with everyone. An experienced user even wrote that he felt I was a 'victim of bullying'.
Because the comments were made by administrators after an ANI discussion, I do not feel comfortable pursuing the matter there. I simply do not know where else to go, other than choosing to leave Wikipedia altogether. Am I wrong to expect more from administrators, or should I just learn to accept these kinds of remarks? Please let me know if I can be of any help to you. 131.111.185.66 ( talk) 01:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
In the list of declined requests, it lists the name and the outcome along with a diff of an edit that occurred at the time of rejection. But are these rejected requests archived anywhere? It seems like they should be but I've searched for one and I can only find it in the page history. Are rejected requests simply deleted from the page? It often happens that a requests relates to an accepted case (either a past case or one that is filed in the future) and it would be useful to have them available. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Are there any objections to making declined case requests archived and thus more accessible? Then, if a request is decline and later gets reproposed, there can be a link to a page rather than a link to an edit in the page's edit history. If WP:AFD can archive the tens of thousands of pages of discussion about deleting articles, it should be even more important to archive ARBCOM/AE case requests, whether they are accepted or declined. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Have the article naming case and the airport alternate name case been declined? Can they be archived or removed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there such a log? I am curious about the simple stat: how many cases are declined each year? Ah, found it at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. How about linking it from {{
ArbCom navigation}} which is already present on that page (thus suggesting somebody already considers this topic to be within its scope)? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It was suggested that I ask ArbCom their views on a proposal. Currently, at EDR, we have community-imposed and ArbCom-imposed topic bans. However, when an editor is t-banned as a result of WP:AE, the ban is properly logged on the case page but not at EDR. The problem is if an administrator wants to know if an editor is t-banned, in addition to looking at EDR, they theoretically would have to look at every ArbCom case that authorized such sanctions.
I propose adding a section to EDR for AE-imposed restrictions. It would be a little extra work for the admin imposing the sanctions as they'd have to log it in one more place, but it would make things much easier for admins in the future.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 10:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I am just having a WP:AE request thrown out on "procedural" ɡrounds, because apparently I failed to submit the required prior warnings in triple copies with the right kind of rubberstamp and on the correct latest version of the prescribed standard form [10]. Would those arbitrators who are responsible for having turned AE into this absurd parody of a bureaucracy please step forward so that I can punch them in the face? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
We know that disruptive editing on an article page that is covered by discretionary sanctions is subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions. My question is whether disruptive editing on a talk page for an article that is subject to discretionary sanctions is subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a question about discretionary sanctions. Is it too early to request that the article Chip Berlet be placed under the discretionary sanctions recommended by the pending case "American Politics"? I ask because we are seeing the behavior described in that case occurring on this BLP. Viriditas ( talk) 21:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a record of warnings made to the SPA that should be looked at by arbs. The account, 55 Gators ( talk · contribs) appears to be an obvious sock created solely to disrupt the BLP under discussion. I refer to him as Collect's little friend, because he always shows up when Collect needs help. [12]. An account used solely to malign a BLP should not be permitted to continue. It is sad that Collect has reached such depths, but this is one reason I am asking for an injunction as this ongoing behavior is identical to the issues raised in the current American politics case. Although there are many diffs to review, two of the most egregious illustrate the explicit tag teaming between the SPA and Collect: [13] [14] Viriditas ( talk) 22:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It has become impossible to contribute to the wikipedia. There is a circle of regular users and admins who know each other. Some users like me are just interested in contributing to wikipedia and are not interested in entering this circle. So when non-circle user like me complain about behaviour of this circle member, the circle either ignores it or find some edit to ridicule, warn, ban or block non-circle users. Last year a admin followed me, got involved in content dispute, threatened me of topic ban on Gujarat articles [15] and eventually managed it on the strength of circle members. [16] This year also, another admin accused me of lie, POV editing and threatened me to step away from LGBT articles. [17] When I went to ANI to seek help [18], a non-admin circle member closed thread. [19] Now I came here and noticed that arbitration committee members are also admins, they are also circle members. Whole structure of wikipedia sounds like a police state where police/judiciary, chosen by rich citizens, twist laws and beat up poor citizens. Is there any executive branch on wikipedia to seek help against injustice or is it time to say goodbye to wikipedia? Abhi ( talk) 05:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I am going to reply to this reply of User:Serialjoepsycho here. I removed unsourced material from Lesbian Association of India as per WP:VERIFY which doesn't talk about article blanking. But now I learned about WP:BLANK and as per this policy, I admit, it was mistake to blank the article. But admin Bgwhite could have simply reverted my edit citing WP:BLANK. He insisted that article is well-sourced and accused me of lie, POV editing and threatened me to step away from LGBT articles. [20] [21] When other editors pointed out that article is not sourced and no reliable sources exists, he is now supporting AfD of another editor. [22] One year ago, admin Qwyrxian managed to ban me on basis that I called their peer-reviewed academic sources as 'crap'. [23] Now one year later another admin threatens to ban me for opposite reason saying that peer-reviewed academic source are not necessary. [24] Why these psycho admins abuse admin powers, twist policies to insert their material in articles? And what POV editing I was doing? I had touched LGBT articles only 2 days ago and had edited only 3 articles. Perhaps Bgwhite was referring to my ban on 'politics and religion in Gujarat'. How LGBT topic is related to 'politics and religion in Gujarat' topic? And why use past punishment, long expired ban to label user as 'forever criminal' to downplay and revert his edits?
And what POV editing I did on Gujarat articles? Last year I had disagreement with admin Qwyrxian and user The Rahul Jain on Jain articles. I abandoned, forgot that disagreement and moved on to 2002 Gujarat riots. User:Darkness Shines had replaced this whole highly controversial subject article ignoring my request to discuss on article talkpage. I repeat, whole controversial article was replaced by contents of single user who had been blocked multiple times. These admin Qwyrxian and user The Rahul Jain followed me on 2002 Gujarat riots and started supporting replacement of user Darkness Shines to take revenge on me. I had attempted to include my material in only one edit on only one gujarat related articles. I had 6 reverts to restore previous version of article and contents of admin Utcursh, not my material. [25] Then I had promised that I won't edit war and I will user every option on wikipedia to resolve dispute. [26] But still psychotic admin Qwyrxian went to AC/DS to block my dispute resolution process. But that is not all. As this admin has filed ban request, I thought that it is my moral obligation not to touch any Gujarat related articles until decision is made. [27] Now another psychotic admin Edjohnston came into picture. He interpreted my self-imposed moral obligation as declaration of edit war on Gujarat related articles and imposed 3 months of blanket ban on me for all Gujarat related articles.
Wikipedia is classic case of how social insanity spreads, like that in Lord of the Flies, in absence of guiding, independent and powerful executive leadership. Admins, regular users know each other like friends. So when new user complain against some member of this circle, instead of disciplinary action and introspection, this circle launches witch-hunt against reporting new user to eliminate him from contributing to wikipedia. These Arbitration Committee members are also admins. It is not independent governing body. I can't expect them to act against their own friends. So I think, for new users or non-circle users, all ways to contribute to wikipedia are closed. That's against founding principles of wikipedia. But does anybody care these days?
(PS- I won't be surprised if some circle member remove this edit because of my 'psychotic' words for involved admins or for some other reason. I think their actions are psychotic and I stand by it. Goodbye.) Abhi ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
How can I tell if anyone is working on this request? [30] There have been comments by admins Sandstein and EdJohnston, but I'm not sure where the request stands at this time. Scalhotrod made a lengthy reply, though none of it addresses the diffs I gave with my original request (which was under 500 words). Since then, I have asked some questions:
Today, he has accused me of POV editing on another article talk page. [33]
Please help. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I've begun a thread on discussing possible changes to ARBPIA on the matter of socks, if those interested in the matter could join the discussion that would be great. Sepsis II ( talk) 03:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that the problem isn't socks but rather another Zeq/CAMERA-type episode. This would very much be an arbitration-related matter. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think that all articles covered by sanctions like ARBPIA should be permanently semi-protected. It is "against Wikipedia philosophy" but the area is now pretty mature and the majority of new editors are not up to any good. Semi-protection would not prevent socking, but would slow it down a great deal.
Zero
talk 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I would propose a change to the 1RR attached to this case. Standard 1RR rules would still apply, in addition the part of the article reverted can not be reverted more than once per 24 hours by any editor unless there is a consensus to do so. A clear consensus with a valid reason to do so and not a majority vote. The only exemption of course being the current exemptions already in place for 1RR and 3RR. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 05:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I know that if you mention somebody at ANI you're supposed to inform them. I'm guessing the same is true of ArbCom. Is there a standard notification template to do this? If so, where is it mentioned on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
subst:arbcom notice}}
but I got the impression that it was for notifying the defendant(s), not for those only tangentially involved. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering
Redrose64's observation, I have worked up a simple modification that accommodates notification for persons mentioned in a case, but not listed as a party. If the Committee would please review the test case @ {{
Arbcom notice/testcases}}
and voice any objections that may arise, I would appreciate the feedback. Additionally, if better ideas emerge, I am happy yielding to the better way. Also, I am willing to edit the main template and update its documentation without qualm, or observe its implementation by another. I am equally fine if the suggestion is rejected, though I believe in has merit. Cheers.—
John Cline (
talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can an Admin remove the comments of Collect and Capitalismojo from this AR: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sue Rangell. They appear to be against Decorum as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. Lightbreather ( talk) 02:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I was told that, when notifying an editor that discretionary sanctions are in effect, I am supposed to log that notice. Where is that done? Am I supposed to edit the case decision, which I thought was limited after closure to arbs and clerks? I had thought, maybe incorrectly, that the edit filter would do that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I was also told that I should only notify an editor of discretionary sanctions if there may have been misconduct on their part. Is that correct? If so, that should be clarified, and is not consistent with the wording of the template. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
That all sounds about right to me. When exactly to notify has been the subject of some debate, but the primary thing is that an "alert" is only an alert to the fact that they are editing in an area that is subject to DS. It is like a warning sign on a road, there to alert you to the oresence of a hazard. It is explicitly not a judgement on the quality of their contributions. And SQ is right that anyone may alert anyone else (assuming no other restrictions are already in place on them) to the presence of DS. When done properly it should be more like "hey be careful there buddy, there's rocks in the road up ahead" than "hey you drive like an idiot". Some people will take it the wrong way regardless though, that's just human nature. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm presenting this in the right forum, but I have a suggestion. When presenting the final results on a request for enforcement, it would be good to have those results qualified, much as they are in an ArbCom itself.
I noticed in the Gun control ArbCom, under Findings of fact, each involved party was named, and then the policies they'd broken were listed, with diffs to the edits that broke each policy. Like this:
JohnParker
JohnWhorfin
And so on. It's very clear exactly what they were being sanctioned for. That would be a good thing to have in enforcement requests that end in sanctions, I think.
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 appointments to AUSC are now open. The AUSC is an ArbCom body that inspects and regulates the use of CheckUser and Oversight.
All administrators are eligible to volunteer this year. To volunteer, read WP:AUSC to understand the role; the appointments page to understand the process; then email the committee with a nomination statement. You will be presented for community comments and a Q&A in August.
Questions are very welcome on any arbitrator's talk page, or by email.
For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK
[•] 13:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the boxes "Wikipedia Arbitration" and "Arbitration Committee Proceedings":
"Recently Closed Cases" is misnamed because it links, as far as I can see, to all historical cases, even those closed a long time ago.
Duplicate, overlapping, and slightly-differently-worded links to the same information, overlapping information, or different presentation of the same information is confusing. There should be exactly one clear link to every relevant sub-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.7.119 ( talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am expected to appeal my restrictions in the Infoboxes case, so said Nikkimaria who seems to follow me everywhere. I will not meet the expectation. I came to like my restrictions so much that I decided that I can live and die with them (look for red on my user page). Sometimes I walk away after two comments to a discussion even if I don't have to. It saves time. - I try to stick to the restriction of not adding an infobox to an article that I didn't create, however sometimes I remember the work I put into an article so well that I forget that I didn't "create" it, for example Victor Bruns, Polish Requiem, Richard Adeney, - apologies. - Can we perhaps invent a template explaining for our readers: "This composition by Penderecki has no infobox - as other of his compositions - because the main contributor is restricted"?
On Canadian Independence Day, Nikkimaria made an edit that I didn't understand, out of the blue collapsing three items of information in a long established infobox and removing details. I don't know why. It's one of these discussions where I walked away. Is that the expected behaviour with a "level of professionalism" mentioned in the decision? - Dreaming of a bit more egalité, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.
Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.
Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.
If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.
For the Arbitration Committee, WormTT( talk) 10:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If I template an editor with {{subst:Ds/alert|ee}} , it doesn't display Eastern Europe as the area of the discretionary sanctions. (It does display it correctly if the area is Pseudoscience). Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
A case request is currently pending. An editor changed the name of the requested case. Another editor (not a clerk or arbitrator) reverted the name, stating that only clerks and arbitrators should change the name of a case request, stating that the change was disruptive. (I concur that the change was disruptive.) My question is whether the ArbCom and its clerks agree. Is changing the name of a case request after it is filed and before it is accepted or declined disruptive? (I am aware that sometimes the arbs change a case name.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The instructions for WP:ARCA read "This is not a discussion. You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private. Do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."
Similarly the WP:RFAR instructions read "Compose your request or statement in your user space or an off-line text editor before posting it here. This busy page is not the place to work up drafts."
Per Seraphimblade [38] Making a draft appeal of a topic ban in userspace is itself a technical violation of the topic ban.
In my opinion this discrepancy should be corrected either by updating the instructions, or WP:BANEX to expand the exception for composing a draft. Currently we are directly instructing users to violate their bans as they try to appeal them. Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I am and have been concerned and appalled by the response and treatment editors receive on arb clarifications. Seraphimblade has declined Momento's appeal based on a reading of sanction rules that is at best confusing. How is it that an editor can post to a clarification as instructed to on the clarification page and be reprimanded for that or to have posted in a sandbox unaware that this was not allowed under the ban and have his appeal declined because he posted in his sandbox. Seraphimblade says himself many editors are unaware of these restrictions, yet Momento is accused of poor judgement and his appeal declined in effect, for what he doesn't know. A further real issue is that editors asking for clarification or explanation during an appeal are ignored when they do try to understand or figure out what to do next. Momento has received no reply from Seraphimblade despite questions on how to proceed.
I have the greatest respect for the arbs and the difficult jobs they do. However, if arbs do not have the time to operate an arb clarification properly, to explore the issues in an in-depth way that is fair and respects the editors, all of the editors requesting a hearing, then get rid of it. Let editors know that AE is as far as they can go. We have a system of dispute resolution at the AE level right now that can easily be manipulated. One admin makes the sanction while other friends to that admin can be called in to support. While patrolling AE is tough, and those who do the job are to be thanked, abuse is easily possible. Ask me how many times the same editor took me to AE and how often the same editors or known allies came in to sanction. So its important for editors to know they have some place to appeal, but, If that appeal isn't dealt with carefully; its hurtful and damaging. Again, if it can't be done properly, don't do it.
There is a lot of talk about what damages Wikipedia. What damages Wikipedia is how we treat people. In my own case I have experienced bias and bigotry, lies and mis representation, the creation of narratives that have nothing to do with me or who I am, and I know many who have experienced the same. Civility in a collaborative community is about how we treat each other, what we can do for the others in the community so they can give the most of themselves and their abilities. Even SPA editors should be respected; they often have expertise others do not. We don't all have the same abilities, education, or experience. (And by the way if we have a Nobel Laureate working on Wikipedia, help him learn the ropes. We need him). I was willing to walk away from my own Arb clarification debacles for numerous reasons, but seeing someone else treated to the same has made me very angry.
An arbitrator, and this isn't about Seraphimbalde, has to be willing to look in depth and have the time to do so, and if they are wrong they have to have both the courage and humility to say so. I always feel fine about a mistake admitted and corrected and feel privileged to work with someone who has that kind of personal courage and integrity. That should be the WP editor model and I suspect would go along way towards retaining editors.
Momento asked for a hearing of his case. I was there on the Prem Rawat article at the time of the original sanction, in a relatively uninvolved capacity, watching closely, and I think a mistake was made, maybe several. Jimbo was commenting about the article, there was pressure and bingo, editors were sanctioned even as their behaviour was improving and on the upswing. Understandable, even if unfair. But at the least, could the arbs in Momento's appeal answer the questions and deal with the specifics in depth, respecting Momento as a human being and acting in a capacity that indicates the arbitration committee sees the arb clarification process as as an official way to appeal a perceived mistake. If the process isn't meant to be useful, let's get rid of it now.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC))
I have observed that nearly all of the previously decided arbitration cases have shortcut abbreviations, such as WP:ARBPIA for the highly contentious Palestine- Israel- Arab case. I didn't see a shortcut for the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics case. Was there one? Since shortcuts don't appear to be reserved to arbitrators and clerks, I went ahead (as per WP:BOLD) and added WP:ARBAP. If that was incorrect, someone can fix it. (As November 2014 approaches, it may be necessary to put a few topics under discretionary sanctions due to left-right crossfire, and the motion remedy is timely because it permits action during the election season without waiting two months for a full case hearing.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In WP:ARBAP, the Arbitration Committee stated that new topic areas within American politics could be placed under discretionary sanctions without the need for full cases, by motion. However, motions can only be made by arbitrators or recorded by clerks. Is a request to extend discretionary sanctions made as a request for amendment to WP:ARBAP? Is it necessary to include all of the edit-warriors in the amendment request? Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Two requests under WP:ARBAP to extend discretionary sanctions had the same title (except for case, which is often folded). This could cause problems in cross-referencing later. I was WP:BOLD and expanded the names of the headings by adding parenthetical phrases (Kentucky Senate election) and (Dinesh D'Souza films). If this was incorrect, a clerk can revert the changes and possibly disambiguate in some other way. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Roger Davies et al., regarding the Misconduct request, can diffs from formal mediation be used in an opening statement and presented as evidence in the evidence phase (e.g., diff1, diff2)? I thought formal mediation was privileged communication. If so, these should be cleaned up before we go much further. Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering why "31 hours" has been mentioned by two arbitrators as a better solution than an arb case. IS this a magic number? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC).
I don't want to get in trouble for bringing this to the wrong place. Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, a debate on the loose use of term "TERF" (Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminist) has cropped up repeatedly in threads at Radical feminism.
Because the term is often used in death threats like "Die terf scum" on social media sites and in harassing emails (evidence will be presented when necessary), women editors may find it intimidating to see it loosely bandied about on Wikipedia talk pages regarding individuals mentioned in articles. And they also may fear it will be used against them should they support a more NPOV presentation. (See August 2014 New Yorker article for details of harassment women face on this issue.) I don't want to ask for sanctions against editors, just a ruling that the term should not be used except strictly and carefully regarding use in articles as described by RS. So where's the best place?? Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if this is actually a behavioural issue since what is at issue is the talk pages and not article content. Perhaps another look at the request would be in order or some advice. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 19:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC))
I was unaware of this thread and have already started a request for clarification regarding this issue which can be found here. My apologies for the overlap. If I am in error or posted the request in the wrong place, please let me know or remedy the issue for me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The term is an obvious slur, and I'm willing to block any editor using it outside the description of what it is. Dreadstar ☥ 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I have filed a case request, and have been advised to add other editors as parties to the case. Should I (as filing party) go ahead and do this by adding the {{userlinks}} or {{admin}} things to the case header and the statement sections to the request, or should I just leave the case request as it is? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether I placed my new request in the wrong place. The instructions say to place the request template "below the first header" when editing–which I thought I had done, though the page is showing a repeated, red-bordered "To make an arbitration case request:" instruction block. I'm unsure whether it is supposed to have that block repeated, and apologies if my insertion broke something. • Astynax talk 02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Checking my watchlist after coming back from holiday, I was surprised to see that Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough was still open. The case was created 5 weeks ago and nobody has commented (I think) for the last 28 days. Forgive my ignorance if this is covered somewhere in published processes, but are time limits defined for stale cases, or does this come down to committee members stating that a case should be closed? -- Fæ ( talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the Arbitration Committee essentially a court of law? Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 22:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)