Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Closing request |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude> |
||
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment]]}} = |
|||
<includeonly>= [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment]] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} |
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} |
||
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> |
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> |
||
| Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]] |
[[Category:Wikipedia requests]] |
||
== |
== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal == |
||
{{hat|Consensus among arbitrators that they will not reinstate the site ban. Crouch, Swale is welcome to consider [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks|asking an admin to place a self-requested block]], using the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer|WikiBreak Enforcer]], or [[Special:GlobalVanishRequest|requesting a courtesy vanish]]. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b> ([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{hat|reason=Clarification request archived. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 12:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
'''Initiated by''' [[User: |
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Crouch, Swale|Crouch, Swale]] '''at''' 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
||
;Case or decision affected |
;Case or decision affected |
||
:[[Special:Diff/817961869]] |
|||
:{{RFARlinks|Palestine-Israel articles}} |
|||
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested |
|||
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/817961869]] |
|||
*{{userlinks|Shrike}} (initiator) |
|||
*{{admin|Bishonen}} |
|||
''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request'' |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&type=revision&diff=1077308493&oldid=1077292824 |
|||
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: |
|||
=== Statement by Shrike === |
|||
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]--> |
|||
This regarding following from [[WP:PIA]] |
|||
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator) |
|||
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc |
|||
Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at [[WP:AE]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1077250047&oldid=1077242892] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1077257304&oldid=1077250047] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" |
|||
I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA [[WP:AE]]/[[WP:ANI]]/[[WP:AN]] threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at [[WP:AE]] page |
|||
Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement [[User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE]] |
|||
:{{re|Worm_That_Turned}} The rule was made to block socking, IPs and new users have nothing to do there, except if case is filed against them, so such users that want to comment there are probably returning users the shouldn't comment for example the IP first edits is some internal wiki proposal that is a low chance that not experienced user will come there [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&diff=prev&oldid=1076991277],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&diff=prev&oldid=1076397401] anyhow, in the end, <s>I want some consistency right now comment by non-ECP user was removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1077448421&oldid=1077447631] while comment by IP was restored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1077444810&oldid=1077435958]</s> --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I must say I totally agree with Wugapodes also I doesn't put any additional strain on AE admins as with articles the removing of such comments is usually done by regular users [[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] But that what happens in article space almost every time non-ecp user make edit, user from other camp are removing it citing [[WP:ARBPIA]]. That the usual practice. [[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] What about ANI/AN,for example at RSN in various RFCs the users are doing the clerking and removing non-ECP comments and I think personally its the best way per [[WP:NOTBURO]] if there are some dispute that can be always brought to uninvolved admin or at [[WP:AE]] [[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
; Information about amendment request |
|||
=== Statement by Bishonen === |
|||
*[[Special:Diff/817961869]] |
|||
Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=1077309985#You_restore_at_WP:AE]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC). |
|||
:*Restore site ban. |
|||
*Adding: Arbcom "owns" AE but traditionally takes little interest in it. Not sure if anybody is interested in a trip down memory lane, but it was in fact me that agitated for disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from posting ''requests'' at AE, back in 2015, and me that added the wording about it to the pink template.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header&diff=682287958&oldid=678937245] You can see me pushing for it and nearly giving up in the face of lack of Arbcom interest, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=682269935#Disallowing_non-autoconfirmed_users_from_opening_WP:AE_requests here], but in the end, they allowed it. Before 2015, it had been quite a problem, with disruptive requests repeatedly opened by socks and dynamic IPs, which wasted some admin time and also — a much bigger problem — forced the unfortunate targets of these usually bad-faith reports to repeatedly defend themselves. That was my focus at the time, and it seemed easier to get Arbcom to allow the smaller restriction, only against opening reports, while still welcoming everybody to post. If the current committee (which seems more interested! good!) wants to enlarge the restriction, I've no objection. But for myself, I agree with Worm's and Zero's comments that AE admins should have discretion here, since they run AE anyway. |
|||
*As for Shrike's removal, it seems a bad idea to me that an editor who has already posted an opposite viewpoint,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1077089160&diff=1077092113][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1077094917&diff=1077096282][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1077096643&diff=1077096697][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1077121220&diff=1077122089] and has skin in the game, should remove an IP post (twice, yet). Even if it's the right action, it's the wrong user. If this ends with IPs and noobs being generally disallowed, perhaps something about involved users leaving them alone should still be part of it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC). |
|||
=== Statement by Crouch, Swale === |
|||
*@{{u|Shrike}}: That's the usual practice in PIA? That's a ''bad'' thing. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC). |
|||
A week from now could you please site ban me either permanently or temporarily. I don't think I should be on here anymore. Please note that this is '''not an appeal''' rather the opposeite to ''reinstate'' the site ban. |
|||
:{{Ping|CaptainEek}} We've banned other users like [[User:Lugnuts]] who created many new articles but weren't of good quality and [[User:BrownHairedGirl]] who has made many contributions but had civility issues. If I want to be banned I don't see why that can't be done. Additionally I'm not asking for any negotiations here such as a promise to remove my restrictions. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 09:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|Primefac|L235}} What would be grounds for a site ban then? If I was to make personal attacks would that be grounds? BHG was banned for personal attacks by adbcom, if I did the same would you do the same for me? You can block me with talk and email revoked and block my IP addresses with blocking logged in users so that I have no chance of contributing again. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Ping|Barkeep49}} A block is just a block, nothing official and can be removed by any admin while a site ban is formal and official. From what I can remember my IP addresses geolocate to places like [[Colchester]], [[Danbury, Essex|Danbury]] and [[Maldon]] and I don't think are used by anyone else so could probably easily be blocked as well. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{Ping|Cabayi}} That would be global and not a formal ban for example I should still be able to contribute on Commons. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{Ping|Just Step Sideways}} But why not do something silly. Clearly doing the right thing hasn't got me very far. Clearly this project is sickeningly unreasonable. Clearly this project has lots of arbitrary rules that aren't even written and if you violate them or not is often down to chance. This project claims to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit not the project that wants to exclude many articles from Crouch, Swale or exclude a few hundred units from Crouch, Swale's country. The project appears to have some kind of agenda against my contributions or places in my country. But yes its not just things that have happened to me its also silly things like the ARBECR which targets new users who probably don't have a clue how this project works. So why not just do something silly and get banned clearly this project is cracy so I've probably not got that much to loose anyway. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by Kenneth Kho === |
||
Thank you for over 100K edits to Wikipedia, thank you for your service. However it is best to provide reasons why your editing restrictions can be lifted in part or in full, if that is what you are looking for. [[User:Kenneth Kho|Kenneth Kho]] ([[User talk:Kenneth Kho|talk]]) 07:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in. |
|||
=== Statement by Barkeep49 === |
|||
However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Crouch, Swale]] why does it need to be a site ban? I respect someone who wants to go out on their own terms, but a site ban is still an ugly ugly way to do it. If you ask me next week I am willing to put an indefinite block on your account without talk page and email access, which is what would also happen with a site ban. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by QoH === |
|||
{{Re|Barkeep49}} You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
+1 to what Barkeep said, I would also be willing to place a self-requested block. [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred;">charlotte</span>]] [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<sup style="color: darkred;">👸♥</sup>]] 23:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
===Statement by Just Step Sideways=== |
||
Crouch, it is ''highly'' unlikely that any admin would just randomly decide to undo a self-requested block. It would be logged as such and nobody would have any reason to unblock. Please, don't try and get banned by doing something foolish. If you did it would probably still be a single admin who blocked you anyway. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here. |
|||
{{pb}}Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1077447631&oldid=1077444810&diffmode=source] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1077181209&oldid=1077153172&diffmode=source] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry. |
|||
{{pb}}This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It has occured to me that if the issue here is trying to break Wikipedia addiction permanently, [[WP:vanish|vanish]]ing is probably a better option for you. It's a voluntary agreement between you and this project that you are going away for good. It's not a sanction, and it provides a clean break. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 21:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Atsme === |
|||
While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to [[WP:POV creep]], inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by |
=== Statement by Super Goku V === |
||
Crouch, Swale, the best way to do this is to get a self-requested block, have talk page access revoked, and then scramble your password. If you are worried about scrambling your password, have Google or some other service create three passwords, mash them together, copy and paste into the change password field, and delete your clipboard history and saved passwords for Wikipedia. That would make it extremely difficult to regain access to the account, especially with email revoked. |
|||
I've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
As my statement should make clear, amendment should be denied. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 11:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Selfstudier === |
|||
For the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {other-editor} === |
=== Statement by {other-editor} === |
||
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should |
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. |
||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
||
=== |
=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes === |
||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
||
* |
* |
||
=== |
=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion === |
||
*I refuse to allow [[Suicide by cop|suicide by ArbCom]]. If you want to stop editing, you can stop editing. I hope it doesn't come to that, we have purposefully not banned you because we think you can be a helpful and valuable contributor. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 01:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't claim to be an expert on PIA remedies. However, my reading of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction|extended confirmed restriction]] which includes PIA says IPs cannot comment at AE. {{tqq|However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and '''noticeboard discussions.'''}} (emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:I will point out your nearly ten thousand edits this year, which is quite incredible by any measure. You make a difference on Wikipedia. I know your editing restriction is a source of discontent, but it is only one aspect of your multifaceted and long career as an editor. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 01:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I agree with barkeep49's interpretation. But if this causes problems for AE I'm open to some kind of change. The status quo is that AE is an internal project discussion for ECR proposes. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I cannot see ArbCom restoring a block that is not strictly necessary any more. If a block is desired due to concern of continued editing, I highly suggest asking [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks|Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks]] or using the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer|WikiBreak Enforcer]]. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Concur with Barkeep49 and L235. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 04:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Agree with above, and specifically I want to highlight CaptainEek's last comment. Absent contrary opinions in the next two days or so I will close this with a rough consensus of arbitrators that ArbCom will not reinstate the ban. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 14:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* We've got a problem here though - because {{u|Bishonen}} is also right that the big template at the top of the AE page is pretty clear that ALL users can comment. It's even juxtaposed with a statement that IP editors cannot file. In other words, we've got two conflicting guidelines. It's tempting to accept ECR, because that was more recently put in place, but I fall on the other side, that we should focus on AE. I don't want to make the process even more onerous for the admins who take the time to actually work in that area - they already have enough rules to remember, but saying they should monitor the topic that IPs are commenting on for a minor note about whether they can comment seems over the top. Secondly AE is an enforcement board, and therefore one of the areas that we sometimes historically except restrictions, per [[WP:BANEX]], I'd like to push that way as a general principle. Finally, there is the wiki philosophy of [[WP:IAR|doing the right thing]], thinking about the outcomes, thinking about levels of disruption, thinking about net benefit - I trust our admins to monitor the board and will back them up on what they do, I'd rather they weren't hampered by the rules, when trying to do the right thing. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 09:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* {{u|Crouch, Swale}}, it's not what I'd like to see happen but, as {{u|Just Step Sideways|JSS}} points out, [[Special:GlobalVanishRequest|courtesy vanishing]] does what you want and, since July, also includes a global lock. All the best, [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 09:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Zero0000|Zero0000]]'s workflow makes sense to me. @[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] I understand the purpose behind it, but blanket bans and removal without consideration doesn't sit well with me. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* This is not something that ArbCom should be doing, especially when there are viable alternatives that achieve the same result and don't involve discussion by committee. Admins are often [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks|willing to block editors who self-request it]]. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 23:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I agree the wording at AE should be correct, no matter what we decide here. That said, extended confirmed areas, including this one, have often been plagued with new editors who are disruptive at AE, including filing retaliatory/battleground reports. ArbComs of days gone past did not land on the noticeboard wording by accident. I'm pretty reluctant to backtrack on that in topic areas admins have repeatedly told us are the hardest to patrol and which many will not work in. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:::If that's what the AE admins want, I'm all for it. I'd like to defer to their discretion as a whole. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I appreciate the comments on this topic. I believe I now sit at the same point as Wugapodes' final paragraph - that we should update the text as he suggests and that admins should have the discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. So, in a similar situation to this - Shrike could remove the comment, Bishonen could review and restore if she felt it was helpful. And we can all go back to getting on with other things. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm going to take a slightly tangential stance and say that AE should not be open to ''all'' users; AE should be limited to those with an account. In addition, I think the EC restrictions should apply to AE reports in that area. My thinking is that AE is an internal project discussion where we want a high signal-to-noise ratio and robust record keeping.{{pb}}IPs will fall into two camps: newbies and drifters. Newbies should not be commenting at AE for the same reason we don't let them comment in EC areas. Not only are they often socks, the policy knowledge required to participate helpfully is usually beyond them; they wind up being more noise than signal and can quickly cross the line into disruptive. The other type of IP that would comment at AE are what I'm going to call "drifters"; long term editors who, for whatever reason, do not want to create an account and periodically "drift" from IP to IP without an obvious [[meatball:SerialIdentity]]. There's nothing wrong with this, and many of these editors are helpful in various parts of the encyclopedia, but the benefit of inviting them to comment at AE is low. It opens us up to all the problems of newbies and socks (noise) for the occasional helpful comment (signal). The nature of IP-based editors is that they lack a robust [[meatball:AuditTrail]], and that makes it hard to monitor who is using AE and for what ends. There is also the community aspect: drifters choose not to register an account and join our community, and while that's fine, community administration should be left to the community (see [[meatball:RewardReputation]]). So while there is some benefit to allowing IP drifters to comment, the highly administrative, procedural, and controversial nature of AE makes IP editing in general a net negative.{{pb}}Now, with all that said, I think it makes it easier to understand why I think EC restrictions should apply at AE: there are only newbies with none of the benefits of IP drifters. The reason we would not want newbie IPs commenting at AE is the same reason we don't want newbie accounts editing PIA articles or discussions. They lower the signal-to-noise ratio when genuinely new and are usually socks when they are policy-adept. For the few clean starts or IPs-turned-account, they will be able to participate when they have a sufficient reputation (i.e. 30/500) which I think is a feature not a bug.{{pb}}So, all together, I would suggest the following text: {{tq|All <ins>registered</ins> users are welcome to comment on requests <ins>not covered by [[WP:ECP|extended confirmation requirements]]</ins>.}} I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I agree with Bish that Shrike was the wrong person to clerk this at AE. Uninvolved administrators are already authorized to clerk that noticeboard and assuming current consensus holds, would continue to be authorized to do so around IP moving forward. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Shrike|Shrike]] AE is not, by design, like any other noticeboard. The rules are different and so what it means to {{tqq|not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles}} (to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm in favor of leaving it to the discretion of uninvolved admins. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 17:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Given the issues we've had with socks, including some that have been used to harrass other editors, in the topic areas under ECR and that AE has been one place that has been a source of conflict, I'm in favor of saying ECR applies to AE also. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* There is a practical point that hasn't been publicly discussed where there are certain specific editors we do not want participating in the area (including AE), and ECR helps to remove incentive for those editors. I am inclined the same way as Barkeep, and to change the AE text accordingly to account for ECR topic areas. {{tq|All users are welcome to comment on requests.}} to {{tq|All users are welcome to comment on requests <ins>except where doing so would violate ECR</ins>.}} or some such is closer to what I would recommend. Explicitly, I think this should not be at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== Motion: Palestine-Israel articles ==== |
|||
{{ivmbox|[[WP:ECR|Extended-confirmed restrictions]] apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at [[WP:AE|Arbitration Enforcement]] when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header]] is modified by replacing {{tq|All users are welcome to comment on requests.}} with {{tq|All users are welcome to comment on requests <ins>except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an [[WP:ECR|extended-confirmed restriction]])</ins>.}}}} |
|||
:{{ACMajority|active=14|motion=yes}} |
|||
;Support |
|||
# <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;Oppose |
|||
# |
|||
;Abstain |
|||
# |
|||
;Arbitrator comments |
|||
*While I support the ideas involved here, I don't like setting a precedent that it takes an ArbCom motion to change the AE header. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**{{re|Barkeep49}} I am not too worried about that. AE admins: feel free to keep updating that header like normal. This motion is just making a one-time change in accordance with the clarification in the first sentence of the motion. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**I'm fine just updating the AE header if that's where we're all at. That hadn't happened yet so I assumed we were waiting on some kind of motion before doing so. Another option which doesn't require outright passing a motion to modify the AE header is to clarify the section of [[WP:ECR]] by modifying the text of A1 to read {{tq|Internal project discussions include[...]noticeboard discussions <ins>(including arbitration enforcement)</ins>.}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I would change the inserted part to {{tqq|except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an [[WP:ECR|extended-confirmed restriction]])}}. Listing one restriction like ECR seems to imply that no other restrictions are in effect, whereas in fact if you are e.g. topic banned you can't comment unless an [[WP:BANEXEMPT|exemption]] applies. Have also copyedited the motion slightly. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
** Amended to include your suggestions. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 21:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm happy with the spirit of the motion, but I share Barkeep49's concern about setting a precedent that may come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Are there any objections to one of us just going and making this edit? '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 02:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:Given the lack of objection from other arbs (which in this instance I take as silent consent) and some sense that we don't want to start handling the AE header by motion, I have gone ahead and made the edit Cabayi proposed above as an individual administrator. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== Motion: Extended-confirmed restriction (draft) ==== |
|||
;Draft 1 |
|||
{{ivmbox|1=The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures ({{slink|Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction}}) are amended by appending at the end the following list item: |
|||
* {{tqq|1=E. Uninvolved administrators may in specific cases grant an exception to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a specific internal project discussion.}} |
|||
* '''OR:''' {{tqq|1=E. Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ([[WP:AE]]), notwithstanding this restriction.}} }} |
|||
; Draft 2 |
|||
{{ivmbox|1= The following subsection is added to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|"Enforcement" section]] of the [[WP:AC/P|Arbitration Committee's procedures]]: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
; Arbitration enforcement noticeboard |
|||
Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow an editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ([[WP:AE]]) notwithstanding any restrictions that would have otherwise prevented the editor from participating (such as the [[WP:ECR|extended confirmed restriction]]). |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
}} |
|||
;Arbitrator comments |
|||
* I know some arbitrators were planning on going the other way so I wanted to provide draft language for this. This would be a change from the status quo but I suppose I could be convinced. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 07:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* If we go this route, I'd prefer the method in Draft 1 and limiting its scope to AE rather than internal discussions generally. I think Draft 2 could be a good idea if we had more to add to it, but at the moment creating a section on AE just to note an exception seems more confusing than clarifying. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== Clarification request: Ryulong == |
|||
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Mythdon|Mythdon]] '''at''' 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;Case or decision affected |
|||
:{{RFARlinks|Ryulong}} |
|||
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' |
|||
*{{userlinks|Mythdon}} (initiator) |
|||
''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request'' |
|||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> |
|||
=== Statement by Mythdon === |
|||
I have a question as to whether the restrictions listed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Log_of_blocks,_bans,_and_restrictions here] are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Motion_1 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon_banned here]) has expired. |
|||
Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong_(3) this discussion]. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mythdon/Archive_9#Blocked_indefinitely blocked indefinitely] shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_8 here] ''"To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). '''During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions''' (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)"'' (the topic ban listed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Log_of_blocks,_bans,_and_restrictions here here] had already been imposed by that time). |
|||
I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive242#Unblock_request_from_User%3AMythdon unblocked in 2012] and back in 2016, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive283&oldid=1081888090#Request_to_appeal_unblock_conditions_(voluntary_topic_ban) appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN], which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Log_of_blocks,_bans,_and_restrictions here]? |
|||
Based on ''to run under the current restrictions'' and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that ''to run under the current restrictions'' meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here. |
|||
It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, ''do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation''? |
|||
—[[User:Mythdon|<span style="color:green">Mythdon</span>]] ([[User talk:Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">contribs</span>]]) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Worm That Turned|Worm That Turned]]: I'm not sure what the policy was regarding discretionary sanctions back when this was originally imposed, but I've had different administrators give conflicting opinions about whether they thought the sanction(s) would remain in force after the probation expired. |
|||
:One administrator [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/August#Your_sanction_against_me here] said he was ''sure'' he did not have the authority to impose sanctions longer than the duration of the probation (in response to my question asking him why he changed a revert ban from "indefinite" to "for the duration of Mythdon's conduct probation". While another administrator at the time (Yunshui) said they [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive283#Request_to_appeal_unblock_conditions_.28voluntary_topic_ban.29 "still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period."]. While the imposing administrator (Fritzpol, who's now [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fritzpoll retired]) said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mythdon/Archive_8&diff=prev&oldid=310713947 "When your conduct probation is over, you can ask me for a review and I'll look into it."]. While FayssalF's clarification [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=312319543 here] as well as the remedy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon_banned here] (that I mentioned earlier), doesn't specify whether the ''"current restrictions"'' included the discretionary sanction(s) or not. |
|||
:It's conflicting clarification that I'd gotten between 2009 up until my 2012 unblock, even though the case itself doesn't mention whether the sanctions remain in force or not. But based on your clarification as well as the clarification I received over Discord (where I was advised by an arbitrator to bring my concerns here) and having read [[WP:ACDS]], it sounds like the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive283#Request_to_appeal_unblock_conditions_.28voluntary_topic_ban.29 here] didn't actually revoke [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mythdon&oldid=310516628#Interaction_ban_imposed_at_Arbitration_Enforcement this] topic ban and that this does remain in force under current policy. |
|||
:Either way, if there's a motion along these lines, I'd be okay with just the topic ban portion being superseded (even if the interaction ban remains in force thereafter). The main concern for me (if applicable) is to have the consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive283#Request_to_appeal_unblock_conditions_(voluntary_topic_ban) here] reflected/shown on the case itself. —[[User:Mythdon|<span style="color:green">Mythdon</span>]] ([[User talk:Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">contribs</span>]]) 02:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::All of that answers that questions. Thanks. —[[User:Mythdon|<span style="color:green">Mythdon</span>]] ([[User talk:Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">contribs</span>]]) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Worm That Turned|Worm That Turned]]: Have noted the motion. —[[User:Mythdon|<span style="color:green">Mythdon</span>]] ([[User talk:Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mythdon|<span style="color:teal">contribs</span>]]) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {other-editor} === |
|||
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. |
|||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|||
=== Ryulong: Clerk notes === |
|||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' |
|||
* |
|||
=== Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion === |
|||
* I've spent a little time looking, and I don't believe the sanctions imposed by Fritzpoll (noted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mythdon&oldid=310516628#Interaction_ban_imposed_at_Arbitration_Enforcement here]) have been rescinded. Equally, this appears to have been largely settled in 2015 by motion, with no further issues - so I would happily support a motion to vacate those sanctions. I'd like to hear other thoughts before proposing one though. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:Oh, and noting my response to the general question - yes, discretionary sanctions authorised by conduct probation remain in effect beyond the expiry of the probation. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I concur with WTT's assessment of the situation. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I also agree with Worm. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{re|Mythdon}} going forward you would just be able to point anyone towards this discussion. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 02:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* I concur with Worm that the sanctions are still in effect. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted === |
|||
{{ivmbox|Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under [[WP:WikiProject Tokusatsu|WikiProject Tokusatsu]] (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted. }} |
|||
:'''Enacted''' - '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 23:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;Support |
|||
# I believe we can remove this DS from 13 years ago, especially as all the other items from the case are cleared away. Specifically leaving the IBan in place as I generally don't like lifting them without a specific reason and Mythdon has stated they have no problem with it remaining. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# I think my first choice would have just been to archive this with the clarification above. But I'm willing to do this as a second choice. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#No longer needed to prevent disruption. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 19:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# No obvious issues since 2009 when the restrictions were put in place. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#<span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 01:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
;Oppose |
|||
# |
|||
;Abstain |
|||
# |
|||
;Arbitrator comments |
|||
Latest revision as of 03:07, 11 December 2024
Arbitration Committee proceedings
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
[edit]
Open cases
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal | none | none | 11 December 2024 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please 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.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
- Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
- In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
- Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
- Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
- Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
- Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using
~~~~). - Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
- Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
- Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
- Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
- Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
- Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal
[edit]| Consensus among arbitrators that they will not reinstate the site ban. Crouch, Swale is welcome to consider asking an admin to place a self-requested block, using the WikiBreak Enforcer, or requesting a courtesy vanish. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Crouch, Swale[edit]A week from now could you please site ban me either permanently or temporarily. I don't think I should be on here anymore. Please note that this is not an appeal rather the opposeite to reinstate the site ban.
Statement by Kenneth Kho[edit]Thank you for over 100K edits to Wikipedia, thank you for your service. However it is best to provide reasons why your editing restrictions can be lifted in part or in full, if that is what you are looking for. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Barkeep49[edit]User:Crouch, Swale why does it need to be a site ban? I respect someone who wants to go out on their own terms, but a site ban is still an ugly ugly way to do it. If you ask me next week I am willing to put an indefinite block on your account without talk page and email access, which is what would also happen with a site ban. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by QoH[edit]+1 to what Barkeep said, I would also be willing to place a self-requested block. charlotte 👸♥ 23:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Just Step Sideways[edit]Crouch, it is highly unlikely that any admin would just randomly decide to undo a self-requested block. It would be logged as such and nobody would have any reason to unblock. Please, don't try and get banned by doing something foolish. If you did it would probably still be a single admin who blocked you anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Super Goku V[edit]Crouch, Swale, the best way to do this is to get a self-requested block, have talk page access revoked, and then scramble your password. If you are worried about scrambling your password, have Google or some other service create three passwords, mash them together, copy and paste into the change password field, and delete your clipboard history and saved passwords for Wikipedia. That would make it extremely difficult to regain access to the account, especially with email revoked. As my statement should make clear, amendment should be denied. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}[edit]Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes[edit]
Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]
|