Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

What to make of this editor

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)

Um "none of the edits is a problem" plus no evidence of anything amiss = why in heck post it on any noticeboard? Collect (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest quoting accurately. I wrote "none of the edits individually is a problem." It's easy to anticipate it becoming a problem. Again, WP:ILLEGIT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- are they collectively a problem? Why? "Actions in anticipation of something which is not apparently happening yet" seem to me to be problematic at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is it?

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)

Hang on, alf. No. While it was unduly kind of GWH to make that compliment, I was actually defending the I/P area generally against what I see as a dangerous meme, which reflects a reputation established long ago. It's nothing like the stomach-churning mess it was several years ago before ARBPIA, which had a major impact for the good. I respect or get on reasonably, and often very, well with quite a lot of editors there, even with whom I have pronounced even sharp differences. Greyshark09, Ron Reisman, Ykantor, Reenem, GHcool, DGG, The Curious Gnome, Pluto2012, Activist/JethroB? to cite just the first that come to mind, and though she probably can't stand me, I appreciate a good deal of Gilabrand's work. It's just that she has this terrible tendency to mess with the Palestinian side of I/P history, and rewrite it according to the 'Zionist' narrative interest. Most of the nuisance people, those who didn't edit much, except to revert, or stand round to argue the point on talk pages, or make ANI/AE complaints or write attack pages, aren't around these days, and the chronic infestation of numerous sockpuppets and IP bruisers has been substantially fought off and beaten into silence.

While checking as GHW asked, for a pattern (didn't get too far: I can't look at an edit without getting distracted into editing the new pages), I looked at Khirbat Jiddin, Raml Zayta, Yehiam, Yehi'am Fortress National Park, etc. yesterday to see how she edited it. Nothing bothersome really except that it reminded me of something I read way back.

‘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.e. A Zionist editor will be very intent on writing about I/P articles to get their version of history in. An editor with an eye to the Palestinian side of things, will work to ensure that is duly covered. The problem for the former is that as Benvenisti and many other Israeli scholars show, Zionism has a very long history of rewriting over and out the rich Arab heritage, and editors must avoid that. The problem with 'pro-Pal' editors is that they tend to see the conflict as an historical wrong which wikipedia must put right, and get embroiled in articles on politics, while ignoring the hard, unsexy work of simply looking at the archaeology, history, culture that is being erased or ignored (and probably far more important for wiki articles). There is no necessary problem if editors understand that the one doesn't cancel out the other. The articles must have both narratives in. The best way to do his is simply to insist that here we adopt a restrictive reading for what constitutes RS, which means we must harvest the extraordinarily open, rich resources of predominantly Israeli/Jewish scholarship. That scholarship suffers from none of the blinkered, timorous, defensiveness that 'Zionist' editors often express. It is archival, meticulous, and even when adopting a bias, rich enough in details to allow us to work productively. To me, the problem is not editors. It is lies in a lack of imposed rigour in sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, point taken, of course. I slipped into hyperbole because I respect your work, your equanimity, and your wisdom. I wasn't editing before the ARBCOM case, but I can believe it was worse in the subject area then. The part of my comment that was the most serious was my statement that the problems have gotten more subtle and difficult to document and that administrators will have to accept that and learn to deal with it using the discretionary sanctions. That's possibly an unintended consequence of the decision, but it's also a clear sign that the remedies are working; just as in civilized society crime has largely moved from the streets to the boardroom. It means the laws are working, but it doesn't mean we don't need meticulous investigations of and consequences for white-collar crime as well as for overt violence.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Very good analogy, save for the reflex use of 'white collar crime'. People who like Michael Milken in 1986 earned $600 million per annum sitting at a computer console and 'trading' aren't 'white collar'. They are collaring the white colour (service middle class) in a financial noose fit to strangle them and disappear the world of their blue-colour parents. Probably we should speak of Data-fuge(Datta Phuge) collar crime:) Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary dismissal

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)

We've already got one but thanks for the suggestion,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Changed wording of lead sentence

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)

Clarification request: Toddst1/Holdek

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)

Case or decision affected

Link to relevant decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_the_Toddst1_request_for_arbitration

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Someone not using his real name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Holdek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Someone not using his real name

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)

Statement by Writ Keeper

Looks like. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Holdek

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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.50.128.91&diff=598082168&oldid=598006520. Holdek (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The subcommittee only overturned Toddst1's extension of the block duration to indefinite. We did not decide that the original 1-month block was unsupportable, and our recent decision (which Worm That Turned implemented) should not be interpreted in that way. AGK [•] 19:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear, and to reply to Carcharoth's point, I do consider this a BASC action. WTT may have acted in his own capacity, but he unwittingly had the backing of the subcommittee. However, as Newyorkbrad observes, at this point it hardly matters. AGK [•] 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've probably mucked up a little, because I've implemented the unblock off my own back rather an as a BASC decision. As I say, I did discuss this on the BASC list, and there was agreement to this solution. I believe the 1 month block was good and necessary, though the indef was excessive. I've explained it at Holdek's talk page, my talk page and ANI now. Hopefully that's clear enough. Worm^TT(talk) 09:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure what is going on here. I thought this was a BASC decision. I commented on the appeal and supported what WTT did, but this is the first I've heard that it was done as an individual action. If so, shouldn't a statement be made above by WTT if it was a non-arbitrator action? Since you were acting after a BASC discussion, I think it was in fact a BASC decision, even if you don't think it was. AGK, do you agree that this was a BASC decision? Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• Holdek indicates that his request for an unblock of the IP was granted on March 4. It seems to me that resolves the issue such that there's nothing else we need to do here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Decision on Gun Control Case

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)

I had this same question. Even an updated, revised date of a decision would be welcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Gaijin42 asked for a "revised ETA" [3] almost two weeks ago - to no effect. It is now almost four weeks since the decision was originally due, and it is clearly less than optimal that no indication of current status has been given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I sent an email to the arbs earlier today and asked for an update. --Rschen7754 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Any update on this case, Rschen7754? It looks like a proposed decision has yet to be even started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 17:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There have unfortunately been some technical issues with site access that have impeded progress on this matter. It is on our radar and is being worked on on the arbitration wiki, we hope to have a proposed decision on-wiki soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Have any of the arbitrators been trying to access the site in the evening from US East Coast? If so, I suggest that the arbitrators pass their concerns on to the system administrators. Severe performance problems for users on the US East Coast are being discussed at WP:VPT. Two theories have to do either with the WMF servers in Florida or with Verizon as the primary ISP here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm on the US East Coast and I believe I've run into that issue myself. Hopefully it will be resolved soon. A delay in page-loading that is annoying enough in regular editing, becomes a serious barrier to progress when there are 40 or 50 diffs in evidence that one wants to check. (Also, is it just me, or do diffs take longer to load from https than they did before?) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Performance tends to degrade badly between about 1800 and 2359 EDT. Sometimes page-loading takes longer than 5 minutes, at which time I generally abandon the page read and try again, so I don't know whether it eventually does complete or whether it just times out. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 19 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)

Thanks for the update.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

Taking a step back; I have now seen two examples where WP:AE noticeboard conduct / misconduct related to a complaint/filing on a DS-enabled topic was warned or alerted by filing the DS notification and logging on the case page.

Where and when was it established by the arbitration committee that DS extended to non-DS-authorized-topic behavior on noticeboard threads about the topic? Meta-discussion is not discussion.

I don't recall seeing any such determination. ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Conduct at AE

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)

(Disclosure: I would have been an "involved administrator" in that case but decided to not contribute. The following comments are in general terms and not referring to the people who posted on that case.) While I sympathise with your reasoning, I don't entirely agree. Sometimes, actually often, people file AE cases for impure motives that are obvious to people involved in that field but are probably not obvious to an uninvolved administrator. It should be ok to say so, provided it is done honestly and evidence is provided. Naturally there has to be a limit to the slanging, but I think administrative pages won't work properly if held to the same level of civility and agf that is required elsewhere. Zero^talk 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What? Assuming good faith and civility are not quite the same thing. Assuming good faith, after all, means I (we) assume good faith, absent evidence that dispels the assumption -- but that can be done civilly, that is without invective. If there is a reason not to assume good faith then the evidence should be provided but without histrionics. Nonetheless, there is no good reason, at all, for admin boards to have more incivility -- that only rots the project more from the top down (or from the bottom up). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with HJM. This has been a recurring theme in some AE areas for quite some time - HJM is not talking about "impure motives" he's talking about groups of users attempting to use AE threads as a forum/excuse for personal attacks--Cailil ^talk 09:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell was right to block two users for misconduct at AE, and I've in the past similarly sanctioned users for the misuse of the AE noticeboard as a battleground. Of course, ideally, the same standard would apply across all fora, not only arbitration-related ones.  Sandstein  10:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'd support this. In AC cases, there is a level of formality and process that is not present on noticeboards. I think AE should take after AC more than AN/I and "pile-ons" (where every editor who has ever had a beef with an involved party comes to bring up old grudges) should be actively discouraged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The general concept of maintaining decorum at AE seems good. The AE complaint being discussed is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Gilabrand. For purposes of review here I'll note that User:Bukrafil was blocked by HJ for one attack, per this, and User:Tritomex was blocked after another diff. Tritomex did not name the person he was complaining about, but he seems to have been referring to Nishidani. A detailed explanation of the Purim issue is now at the top of Nishidani's user page. After looking closely I agree with HJ that the removals and blocks were the right thing to do. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't link to the specific thread because my point was intended as a general one, but I welcome review of my actions. What would people think of adding wording to the effect of "personal attacks and unsupported assertions may result in a block without further warning"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How about: "If you make a personal attack on another editor, or make negative statements about a user but without supplying any diffs to back up your assertion you may be blocked without further warning." EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than getting into the whole always-controversial blocking for incivility thing, ya'll should simply heed the existing words "Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted." in the AE instructions, and then just remove the offensive messages? NE Ent 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For me at least the issue is not civility, but unsupported accusations. If you accuse user:Example of X then you must include evidence of user:Example doing or being X, otherwise you should expect to be blocked. If you accuse "some editors" of Y then you must include evidence of two or more users doing or being Y, otherwise you should expect to be blocked. It is irrelevant whether you do this civilly ("I believe user:Example is editing inappropriately with regards to Widgets") or otherwise ("User:Example is a fucking biased troll about Widgets"). The latter should obviously lead to at least a warning about civility, but both should result in a block for unsupported allegations of misconduct at AE. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust of that. People confuse "civility" and "politeness"; there's no requirement to be nice to somebody who is asking for you to be sanctioned, but that's not a license to cast aspersions or make unsupported allegations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 18 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))

While I agree with all that, civility is not the point of this thread. What is being discussed here is blocking people for making accusations against one or more other editors at AE without evidence to back up those accusations, regardless of whether the accusations were made civilly or uncivilly. There are no shades of grey here - either evidence is presented or it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 19 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))

This is a first step in revamping AE. AE requests submitted without evidence should be treated in exactly the same way as other comments at AE without evidence - i.e. a block (although not instantly as it is acceptable to build a request over a few diffs, but once it is clear that they have completed writing it).

The evidence presented doesn't have to prove the accusations, they just need to support them. Remember the requirement is evidence, not diffs. So as irrelevant diffs (e.g. a diff of this edit is irrelevant to accusations about user:example) are not evidence that backup accusations then they would result in a block. As for other diffs, it depends on the accusation. If the accusation is something that is objective, e.g. "User:Example telling other people to 'Fuck off'" or editing an article they are topic-banned from then its clear that the diffs need to show user:example doing that. If however the accusation is not as simple as that, e.g. "User:Example cannot edit neutrally with regards to Widgets", then the diffs need to show User:Example making edits related to Widgets or Widget-related articles that either are or plausibly could be biased. Diffs do not exist in a vacuum, they gain context from their surroundings, so the relevance of an edit to the accusation can be explained, e.g. changing a comma to a semi-colon is usually going to be innocuous, but if in the context of that article it isn't then this can and should be noted.

If the evidence presented turns out to be lies, or an editor is persistently misrepresenting evidence, then they will be sanctioned for doing that independently of the requirement to support accusations with evidence.

Treating editors unfairly is exactly what this is about. It doesn't matter who you are or how civilly you make your comment: If you make an accusation at AE without supporting evidence then you get blocked. If you make a post that doesn't contain accusations, or where all accusations are supported, whether civil or otherwise, then you wont get blocked for this reason.

There are multiple problems with AE, and this is about dealing with only one of them, but that is not a reason to object to it - multiple problems require multiple solutions. Civility does need to be tackled, but it is entirely independent of what we are discussing here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 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)

I think this would be a good idea, for all the reasons supporting it given above.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

'Gun Control' decision - where the hell is it?

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)

There had been performance problems that were being cited. The performance problems were real, but were resolved about a week ago. Since then, nothing has happened: No proposed decision paragraphs. What is the problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 26 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.
Especially given that editors cited in the case are still pushing their own particular POV at that article to its detriment, notably Gaijin42 and North8000. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Yup - and at the same time arguing for the case to be quietly dropped, so they can carry on with their POV-pushing. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC) That discussion was predicated on the dispute being resolved and a rough consensus developed. Such is obviously not the case so there is no reason to continue down that path. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) There has never been anything remotely approximating a 'rough consensus' for the article as it currently stands - to the contrary, multiple contributors have made it entirely clear that WP:NPOV (and other policy) is being flagrantly disregarded by a faction of pro-gun lobbyists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a legitimate question, and deserves an answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Concurred. Callanecc, you can't just dismiss people with legitimate grievances against the committee's failure to do its job. Provide answers or leave it be. And don't provide curt orders to people like "enough". You are the peer of the people you are addressing here, not their schoolmaster. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposed decision is currently being drafted and will be posted as soon as it is ready. I don't know when that may be, as I'm not one of the drafters, but I may guarantee that this has not been forgotten and is being worked on. Unfortunately, drafting a proposed decision takes more time than one may imagine and technical difficulties have caused delays. It's probably not what you hoped to hear, but please have patience; this is not being swept under the carpet and is not being neglected. It's just that it takes time to do it right... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not, but it is an answer, and whether or not it satisfies anyone, it's at least showing that the committee is trying to communicate. That's what got me riled up: the notion that the committee might just dismiss concerns with "enough talk of this; go about your business," which, even if not what the above clerk action was meant to say, still comes off that way.

So anyway, thanks for the answer. It's not what I'd like to hear, but communication we don't like is loads better than none at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:30, 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)

In my opinion, you should self-revert the closing. When a week went by with no update, asking why/complaining was a legitimate comment, not sniping. The lesson here should be that arbcom needs to get better at keeping people updated, not that complaints about it should be collapsed. I do think the section starting with "Especially given that..." should be collapsed for the reasons you gave above, but not the complaint about no update. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've dropped the hat down a bit as suggested. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's reasonable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When did contributions in good standing to another Wiki become "admissible" in ArbCom cases?

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)

We do not ever review every contribution ever made by editors who come before the committee. This doesn't change between editors who only edit Enwiki and editors who edit more than one WMF project. If you think the actual edits to Wikiquote/Wikisource do not demonstrate what the committee holds they do, please rebut the specific edits at the relevant proceedings. AGK [•] 14:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to other projects have long been considered admissible. Please refer to Wikipedia:Arbpol#Admissibility of evidence, which reads:

In all proceedings, admissible evidence includes:

1. [...]
2. Edits [...] from [other] Wikimedia projects [...], where appropriate; and
3. [...]

So, there was nothing strange in our taking into account Cirt's edits elsewhere. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun control article, ongoing Arbitration an embarrassment to WP

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)

Uhm, no. Content disputes are not the remit of ArbComm. Behavior disputes are the issues addressed there. That you assert that "any educated person" agrees with your preferred policy position is both absurd and untrue. Trying to say that the project is now and will be further "embarrassed" if you don't get immediate action from ArbCom (and the article) supporting your position is just odd. Let them do their work, it's a hard enough job without people jogging their elbows. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The entire premise of ArbCom is a fallacy. "Behavior disputes" and "content disputes" are inextricably intertwined and cannot be evaluated independently. If the 'the Holocaust=gun control' users got together and decided to put speculations about Obama's birth certificate into his BLP, this would create a behavior dispute. But the behavior dispute (centered around allegations of tendentious editing) could not be resolved without rendering judgment on the content they added. Steeletrap (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, it's true that solving good-faith content disputes is outside ArbCom's remit; however, it is occasionally possible for a content dispute to become a conduct dispute. It's rare but it's possible; the current standard has been formalised during WP:ARBARG (cf. Neutral point of view and role of the Arbitration Committee and Tendentious editing), where it was held that [...] editors may not assign to a viewpoint a weight that is either so high or so low as to be outside the bounds of reasonableness; such actions violate the neutral point of view policy and that [u]sers who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that it is "rare" for content disputes to factor into the ArbCom's decisions. Most forms of behavioral misconduct are related to edits to articles. Even when it comes to personal attacks, content is contextually relevant. For example, in the ArbCom dispute, one user has repeatedly accused other users of "libelous" edits. If the edits aren't libelous, she's clearly guilty of misconduct for saying they are; if they are, she's not. One cannot answer this question without rendering judgment on content. (Nor can one address the allegations of tendentious and disruptive editing on the Austrian Economics and Gun Control arbitrations without rendering judgment on content.)

On another note, I appreciate the fact that you (Salvio) are actually engaging user concerns with the Arbitration process. Many members of the Committee act like 19th century British schoolmarms, shouting down and threatening to 'punish' anyone who dissents. I think you should be promoted to the Committee from your clerk position. Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, now that you frame the question like this I tend to agree with you and, from my experience, edits are taken into consideration; to refer to the case you mention (I have skimmed over the evidence as it was presented during the case, but I'm not really familiar with it; I'm waiting for the proposed decision to be posted to review the evidence in depth, so I'll take your word for it), if the edits are actually libellous, then an editor defining them as such is not guilty of misconduct, just as a user describing another as a "pov-pusher" or "vandal" is not guilty of a personal attack if the person is actually a pov-pusher or a vandal (with exceptions, however, see WP:ASPERSIONS). What ArbCom will not (and cannot) do is get involved in a content dispute to say who is correct and who is wrong.

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)

Course, it probably doesn't help that we're almost two months past the deadline to even see a proposed decision. Yeah, yeah, technical reasons. Of course, the one legit tech issue was fixed some time ago, and a committee interested in resolving problems with the project could have had someone else post proposals by now if the Chosen Poster's wheels fell off or whatever. Instead, the committee struggles under the surely unbearable burden of TWO active cases. Both of which are overdue. And both of which remain active debacles while Nero fiddles. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not ideal, at all. Hopefully moving forward these issues will be ironed out. In regards to the acceptance of the case: despite the emphasis of evidence being on content there were mentions of conduct that were investigated were adequately egregious. As another note, there is always going to be some intersection between content and conduct. Any decision will leave some sort of implication one way or the other regardless of intent. I'm definitely not a fan of self-expanding remit as was suggested in Workshop. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes were made, eh? The problem here is really that there's nothing like accountability. Not to the community nor any other body. The committee gives us the names of drafting arbitrators and sets public deadlines to give the illusion that there is respect for due process. But it's security theater in a Potemkin village. Barring agreed-on extensions, the committee is happy to close the doors on the Evidence and Workshop phases -- the ones where the rest of us get to say anything -- right on schedule. And if a party to a case just simply doesn't respond for six weeks, they'd almost certainly be censured for it. People have lost the admin bit for far less, even in a world where desysops usually require the unanimous vote of three live unicorns. When the committee does the same though, it's "not ideal", because the committee obviously reserves the right to ignore its deadlines and dicta to itself alone. If the committee is serious about learning from this teachable moment, how about a cogent explanation to the community for how four designated drafting arbitrators over two cases have failed to produce any voting-ready content for weeks (going on months in Gun Control) past their self-defined deadlines? Or why none of the other august members saw fit to step in to shoulder the burden? Not that I expect anything at all. Vaunted claims of committee transparency and efficiency aren't much more real than those deadline dates. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a thing...

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)

It's called a topic ban. It wouldn't really be feasible to allow an editor to edit an article and not the corresponding talk page -- would lead to edit warring and really long pointy edit summaries. NE Ent 22:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure...but that isn't what I am talking about. Article probation doesn't mean all editors cannot edit an article. It just means there are restrictions on the article and it is being monitored by admin and over site by the AC and others. I'm only asking is there is such a probation that has been suggested or implemented on talk pages.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this exactly what you mean, but John has taken a very active role in sorting out a contentious discussion at Talk:Soccer in Australia by creating and monitoring discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia), guiding the discussion through his own statements, removal of off topic comments by others and blocks where he felt they were necessary. His actions have been generally endorsed by the community. NE Ent 23:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a time when article probation has been applied just to a talk page, but ArbCom imposes sanctions (both discretionary sanctions and probation, when they used that) to the article and talk page especially more recently. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there we go. That was what I was wondering about, Thanks Callanecc! (User:Mark Miller 00:08, April 3, 2014)

Mudslinging, bullying, AN/I, and ArbComm

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)

It seems like this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Argentine History right now. If this doesn't address the issue, I think filing a request for clarification might be a preferable option than posting on a talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Liz, thank you for the response. I have already taken this matter to clarification request. Arbitrators suggested to take this case to AN/I. I did so, but nothing came of it. As the issue continues, now I am again back here.

Various administrators and arbitrators have expressed support for my position, and various warnings have already been issued regarding the matter. Yet, the slanderous accusations continue taking place as evidenced by the link you provide.

I don't know what else to do. Warnings are clearly not working. Administrators/arbitrators need to take a tougher stance on the matter.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:58, 4 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)

Nor is there any lack of lack of FA stars that can provide editors with impunity. Just because you don't know what you're doing is no excuse. Eric Corbett 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun Control and Austrian Economics

When will working draft proposed decisions on these cases be started? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed on several Arbitration talk pages (including on this page, above) and the answer is "We're working on it." Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If it carries on like this much longer, I may propose a draft myself - of a motion of censure to ArbCom for not doing the job it was elected for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ARCA archives

Where does Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment get archived? I'm not finding it in any of these searchable archiveboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Each request gets archived to the talk page of the main case. Hope that helps Worm^TT(talk) 12:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment redirects here and it's archive pages are in bottom of the archive box at the top of the page and the bottom search box can be used. Clarification and Amendment requests which don't relate to a case are archived either here or the most appropriate other page (for example WT:BASC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Desire for Search box

Can we please have a Search box at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, so that the many links of the form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

You mean something other than the search boxes on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index? Admittedly, you have to search around to find it and it's for cases only, not simply requests (many of which are rejected). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There are archive bots that can correct these links normally, however the Arbitration pages are, one might say, a law unto themselves, with stuff cut and pasted off hither and yon. A bot could still be constructed if you could find someone who was ready willing and able. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Gun control case

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)

A draft of the decision was posted on the workshop for comments earlier this week. The drafters are reviewing the comments received and it should be on the proposed decision page within a day or two. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Good news. Thanks for the update, Brad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page shortage (No less than 64 talk pages redirect here)

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).

It's better than the alternative. AGK [•] 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The alternative being that watchlists work as designed? It's the same problem as AN and ANI -- ANI has 6K watchers but its talk page is redirected (full protected) to AN's which only has 4K. Doesn't really make sense. Ran into the same issue the other day when I clicked the "Submit an edit request" button on WP:AC/DS and ended up on the WP:AC page ... just made it harder for me to explain what I was asking. NE Ent 15:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's just that there are a lot of different Arbitration pages and so it would be extremely easy to post a comment on an associated Talk Page and for it not to be seen. I believe the Noticeboard Talk Page is separate but otherwise, I think it is easier for the arbitrators and clerks if there is a central place for discussion for general issues regarding arbitration. Comments that are case specific can be posted to talk pages related to the case. I think it would make sense for the DS/GS pages to have their own talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It depends what you mean buy "not be seen". The current system makes it less likely to be seen by the people who are interested, and more likely to be seen by people who are not. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

Here's a salient point. There is no forum to discuss motions raised on the Clarifications and Amendments page. It is already troubling that the community is locked out of these discussions, as I have said before. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

<Archive copy> Discretionary sanctions (2014)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(Nutshell and preamble)

Definitions

• The committee is the Arbitration Committee.
• AE ("arbitration enforcement noticeboard”) is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests.
• AN ("administrators’ noticeboard") is the alternative venue for appeals.
• ARCA ("Requests for Amendment") is the venue for appealing to the committee.
• An alert is the formal alert notice that informs editors an area of conflict is covered by discretionary sanctions.
• An appeal includes any request for the reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction.
• An area of conflict is a topic or group of topics in which the use of discretionary sanctions has been authorised by the committee.
• An editor is anyone and everyone who may edit and has edited the encyclopedia.
• The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure.
• A sanction includes any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed under this procedure.

Authorisation

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.

Guidance for editors

Expectations

Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
4. comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
5. refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Decorum

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.

Awareness and alerts

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:

1. The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
2. The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
3. The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

Alerts

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:

• is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault,
• cannot be rescinded or appealed, and
• automatically expires twelve months after issue.

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.

Role of administrators

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:

1. impose a sanction when involved;
2. modify a sanction out of process;
3. repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;
4. repeatedly fail to log sanctions or page restrictions; or
5. repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction.

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.

Expectations of administrators

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.

Placing sanctions and page restrictions

Broadly construed

When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.

Sanctions

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.

Page restrictions

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}}).

Enforcement

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.

Logging

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.

Appeals and modifications [placeholder]

[reserved for the Standard appeals and modifications provision]

Continuity

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.

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014)

Proposed: That the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure above supersedes and replaces all prior discretionary sanction provisions with immediate effect;

Enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Support:

1. After a year long review, I guess this is ready,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
2. This is certainly ready. AGK [•] 14:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
3. With great thanks to Roger, AGK and all who participated in the review. Worm^TT(talk) 14:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
4. T. Canens (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
5. My thanks to everyone who led and participated in the extensive discussions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
6. With a special hat tip to Roger and AGK for having the patience to see this through, and a normal hat tip to everyone who participated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
9. Thank you to all who put in the many hours of work on this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
10. Excellent work, Roger and everyone involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
11. Echoing the above, I know a lot of work went into this and it is much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The discussion above 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.

<Archive copy> DS (2014) housekeeping provisions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1. Remedy 8A of Disputed islands in East Asia is rescinded as it is no longer required.
2. Motion 2 of the Trusilver motions are rescinded; they are superseded by the standard appeals and modification provision below.
3. The substantive content at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions is rescinded, and replaced with the new remedy above. The substantive content above is also to replace the "discretionary sanctions" committee procedure.
4. Remedies 4 ("Administrators advised") and 5 ("Administrators reminded") of the Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling case are rescinded, and each replaced with a link to the new remedy above.
5. Provisions relating to mandated external review authorised in Motion about The Troubles of 08 September 2012 are rescinded. The Mandated external review page is deprecated and to be marked historic. The mandated external reviews already in place in respect of users Humunculus, Ohconfucius, and Collipon are vacated.
6. Provisions for special enforcement of Biographies of living people (BLP) in Footnoted Quotes are rescinded and replaced by:

   "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.
7. The standard enforcement provision adopted by motion on 4 June 2012 is amended as follows:

   "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.

8. On passing, the new standard appeal/modification provision is to be added to: (i) the "Appeals and modifications" section of the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure; and to be added/linked to on (ii) the applicable section of all past and current case pages; and (iii) the case template for future cases.
9. All sanctions and restrictions remain in full force and are governed by the "Continuity" provisions of the new procedure.

Motion: DS (2014) housekeeping provisions

Proposed: That the housekeeping provisions be implemented with immediate effect;

Enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
2. AGK [•] 14:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
3. With great thanks to Roger, AGK and all who participated in the review. Worm^TT(talk) 14:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Recused with respect to the last sentence of the fifth bullet point. Support otherwise. T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Actually, I have some substantial changes I'd like to propose... (just kidding) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
10. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
11. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
12. NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The discussion above 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.

<Archive copy> Standard appeals and modification provision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Appeals and modifications

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

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:

1. For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.

Motion: Appeals and modifications

Proposed: That the updated Appeals and modifications provision become the standard provision and replace all prior discretionary sanction appeal provisions with immediate effect;

Enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 21:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Support:

1. Yep,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
2. AGK [•] 14:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
3. With great thanks to Roger, AGK and all who participated in the review. Worm^TT(talk) 14:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
5. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
6. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!}
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
12. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

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)

How does one go about reporting someone?

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)

If necessary (that is, if you believe there has been significant misconduct after the DS alert was given), you can go to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement and follow the instructions there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Brown

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 parties I 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. 131.111.185.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Arkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Resolute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Timrollpickering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Victor falk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Anthonyhcole Arkon Born2cycle DangerousPanda Dmries In ictu oculi JzG Newyorkbrad Obiwankenobi Resolute SmokeyJoe Tarc Timrollpickering Victor falk Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried Talk:Sarah Jane Brown WP:ANI User talk:131.111.185.66 User talk:JzG User talk:Jimbo Wales Statement by 131.111.185.66 The 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 Anthonyhcole The 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 It being around midnight here, I'll post my statement tomorrow. (As a matter of form, the statements are usually allowed to appear in the order they are posted, rather than alphabetically, so that the flow of ideas is more clear.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC) I have just changed the order of comments: I was unaware of proper form. I apologise. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC) It's not an issue. The practices on the arbitration pages are, fortunately, unfamiliar to most users. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 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 This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Sarah Brown: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/1/0> Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other) Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

 Copied. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Declined requests

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)

Yes. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee -> "Archive of proceedings" ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index ) -> "Declined case requets" ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined_requests. ) NE Ent 21:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests was what I meant by "the list of declined requests" in my first sentence. It just includes a link to an edit on the page history. I thought that the requests might be filed in an archive and not just deleted from the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Declined case requests are just removed, only motions plus clarification and amendment requests are archived. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason for this? It seems to me that a searchable archive of declined requests would be very useful. -- John Reaves 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A bot could archive these. Consider proposing this at Wikipedia:Bot requests, unless making the failed requests easier to view is considered undesirable. On the regular admin boards and at AfD, declined requests go in the archive with everything else. The declined requests could go in their own directory but use the names already shown in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I had in mind, EdJohnston. I just think, for example, if I wanted to file a request to open a case, it would be useful to see if a request had been made previously, if it had been declined and what the reasons were. It would let me know whether my attempt would likely be successful, whether it should be abandoned or how its presentation might be made more straightforward, direct and simple.

Each request could be on a separate page, like each accepted case is. It would be so much simpler to link to a reserved page than a random edit in a page history. I also think that if AN/I, with all of its heavy activity, can archive their noticeboard and make it searchable, ARBCOM should be able to. Right now, it's only possible to search full cases and requests that get brought up for enforcement. I think every request should be cataloged and be easy to find through search tools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess my reading skills could use improvement. In any event, since Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined_requests contains a diff, clicking on the diff and then the left revision gives one a functional archive, of a sort. NE Ent 00:22, 6 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)

Two declined cases

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)

I'm pretty sure there are barring some extremely unlikely vote changes. A clerk will archive them at some point. NE Ent 23:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Log of declined cases

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)

• {{ArbCom navigation}} already includes a link to the "Archive of proceedings", the other option is to include a link to each of the different index pages which I'd rather not do as it'll just make it longer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the link is given in my comment (above), and I'd still like to get an answer to my question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Liz, just glancing at the log, I see 37 declined in 2013, and 46 in 2012. I'm not aware that any annual summary is prepared, but it is fairly easy to see the numbers for each year back to 2004. (editing to add that some were motions in lieu of full case, which may not count as rejected, depending on the underlying point of the question).--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:EDR

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'm against that. Sanctions should be logged only in one place, else we have much potential for error in addition to the additional administrative work required. But maybe all sanctions logs from ArbCom pages could be transcluded onto one page to allow for easy searching?  Sandstein  12:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the extra work is minimal, and I don't see any significant potential for error. That said, within reason, I don't care much about how it's implemented as long as I or other administrators can easily find the bans.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

AE bans are already being noted in three places: in the AE closure, in the case log and on the user's talk page. If we need to make an entry for the ban in WP:RESTRICT that will add a fourth place. The search capability at the top of ANI (and other boards) allows searching the person's name in all the admin places, including AE. It's done by the button 'Search noticeboards and archives'. Use of this central search ought to be adequate for determining if the person has an AE ban. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's rare that you and I disagree, Ed, but I don't think the notice on a banned user's talk page counts as a log, just as a block notice isn't a log. As for searching the noticeboards, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but we have lousy search tools, and although I use them because often it's all I've got, I wouldn't do that for this sort of thing. We're really comparing a little extra work upfront to save a fair amount of work down the road, and being required to do the former eliminates the need for the latter. I also think that you and Sandstein are heavy participants at AE, so all of this is familiar to you. Indeed, you may remember a lot of t-bans without even having to verify them, or at least something will jog your memory because of your prior participation. Unfortunately, that doesn't help those of us who participate at AE less frequently.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If there's going to be any new section added at WP:EDR I recommend that somebody fix the format so you can tell (a) who added the note about the restriction, (b) the date it was added. Without a visible date, the lists grow from both ends because nobody can tell what is the most recent, the top or the bottom. To handle this problem it might be sufficient for each closing admin to append their dated signature to the ban wording in the table cell. There should be an agreed-on practice on expired sanctions (strike them or remove them). Also a general agreement on who can make changes at WP:EDR. Occasionally, well intentioned people will come through and tweak the entries in ways that might change their meaning, though they are not the closing admin. It would be reasonable to insist that anyone who is not the closer should first propose on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions whatever they want to do. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with your suggestions, but they expand the scope of my proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering that a search facility exists, as explained by EdJohnston above, adding another log entry appears superfluous to me. Even if another logging requirement were deemed useful, it would have to be mandated by ArbCom to be binding, because they make the rules regarding arbitration enforcement.  Sandstein  17:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the beginning of this thread, you can see that I was (am) asking ArbCom for their input.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions turning into mindless bureaucracy

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)

Can we finally move the joke that is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to WP:BJAODN where it belongs? Since clearly its provisions, such as "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request", are a dead letter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Question

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)

Yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I will be requesting sanctions against disruptive IPs at Talk: Cold fusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly where are the instructions for the template to warn the IPs? Is the banner at the top of the talk page sufficient, or do I have to warn the IPs? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You have to alert the IPs first on their user talk page with {{Ds/alert}}.  Sandstein  19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, that is {{subst:Ds/alert|cf}} or {{subst:Ds/alert|ps}}. By the way, what is the template for the Syrian Civil War? Would that be an extension of {{subst:Ds/alert|a-i}} ? Also, the case-sensitivity is annoying. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This civil war doesn't seem to fall within any of the topic areas listed at Wikipedia:AC/DS#Current areas of conflict, except to the probably very limited extent the war may involve Israel. But, to my knowledge, the war is principally a conflict within Syria and among groups unrelated to Israel, so the war as a whole doesn't seem to fit within the scope of the existing sanctions.  Sandstein  22:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the issue is that "the community" imposed the sanctions at WP:AN or WP:ANI, rather than the ArbCom. Does that have a different enforcement mechanism? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if any community sanctions apply, they are not enforced via the AE board and are not subject to the DS rules.  Sandstein  05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: See WP:GS, specifically WP:GS/SCW. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Chip Berlet

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)

Absurd -- Chip Bertlet himself said the edit citing an opinion as an opinion was fine -- but Viriditas seems to assert ownership of the BLP. [11] shows that the "problem" does not exist. This is an example of an editor seeking discord where none exists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The above response exemplifies the problem and shows why I have proposed a preliminary injunction pending the closure of the American politics case. Editors like Collect are treating American politics-related BLPs as a battleground, attacking editors who disagree with them, and attracting the support of SPA's who only edit war and confuse the talk page. I have barely edited the article in question, yet I have noticed that Collect does not follow the consensus on the talk page, preferring to pose his unusual form of BLP and NPOV edits. The talk page illustrates the problem. We require a preliminary injunction to prevent the edit warring and SPA shenanigans that Collect encourages. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The assertion about WP:BLP is wrong -- Chip Bertlet states the material is reasonable for the BLP. The claim of WP:NPOV violation is absurd. The relevant quote here is:

Amazing. You are engaging in the same behavior that led to the current arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics. When the consensus was pointed out to you on the talk page, a SPA showed up at that very moment to agree with you, an account recently created to do nothing but edit war on this article. Furthermore, NPOV, BLP, and other policies have been violated. When the aforementioned case closes, I'll make sure the article is tagged under discretionary sanctions and that your little friend is blocked. Have a nice day. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Which shows the actual purpose of this exercise here. Please note that I have, indeed, posted at WP:BLP/N and on Chip's personal user page. Viriditas is seemingly taking the word "Wikivendetta" to new heights here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 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)

I won't pretend to understand whatever game is being played here, but I have no idea who Collect is and he is a newcomer to the debate at that article. So are you, but you seem to be exploiting it for some other purpose. I am not Collect's "little friend," and I wonder what motivates you to say so. The "warnings" that were placed on my personal page are also a sham. If you look at what Binksternet's tactics, it is very ironic that he should be giving out warnings for "edit warring." 55 Gators (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That came out of left field. Why bring my name up here? Oh yes, I forgot, your first-ever edits to Wikipedia were in opposition to me, naming me explicitly. It appears that you are less Collect's little friend than my little foe. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• To answer the original question, I'm afraid it is indeed too early to request that DS be added to anything per the pending case. The proposed remedy has yet to be passed, in fact none of the other arbs have even voted one way or another on it yet. No comment as to whether it would be specifically applicable in this particular instance, but if the remedy is passed you will be free to make this request at WP:ARCA and it will be considered by the committee then. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The effort to fold Chip Berlet into discretionary sanctions before the remedy is approved by the ArbCom is obvious forum shopping. The article is already properly under discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, which is thisaway. If there is reason, such as quacking, other than idle suspicion, to suspect sockpuppetry, then sockpuppet investigations is thataway. It appears that Collect and Viriditas are two editors who do not like each other. Quit forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a BLP it's already subject to discretionary sanctions, so notify involved editors using Template:Alert then file enforcement requests at WP:AE if necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That answers that. If there are improper edits to Chip Berlet, template the editor, and go to arbitration enforcement if the problem persists. However, if User:Chip.berlet, who really is Chip Berlet, does not object to an edit, it would seem to be an overreach to invoke arbitration enforcement. Since the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy is to protect living persons from harm and to protect Wikipedia from liability for defamation of living persons, a living person is sometimes the best judge of what is acceptable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps so in this instance, however I would be very cautious of applying this as a general rule. In the vast majority of instances where I have removed BLP-infringing material from an article, the living person concerned had indeed not objected. (Though I acknowledge that phrase means something different in my sentence to how you used it.) Also, living persons are not always the best judges of what is in their own interest - very often BLP-infringing material should be removed even when it is a direct quotation from the subject. And thirdly, there are cases where public figures are asked, "does it bother you that on Wikipedia it says X about you", and of course the natural human response is "no, I don't care what they say", sometimes with the addition of "I find it funny"... but that might not be their actual opinion, especially as time goes on or if they discover that material included on Wikipedia has a tendency to spread into other outlets as "fact". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it over?

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)

(Note: The user was previously known as User:Neo..) After your strange post on my page (? have we had any previous contact at all?) I reviewed your edits, and yes, it's time. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC).

They think it's all over, it is now! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to User:Serialjoepsycho

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)

I'm sorry I'm not going to read that wall of text. I was politely responding to one of your issues. I hope you will consider that perhaps the world is not out to get you and you may be doing something wrong. Look You joined in august 2013. You have a small number of edits. Over all I would term you as a new editor. Some of your reactions seem disproportionate. On your talk page and in the article in question it seems that BGwhite was responding as an editor and not an admin but I'd let him speak on that. I would note however that you were pushing for deletion and it's up for deletion. see this. I'm not a part of arbcom or an admin but I see no reason they will take you case. Good luck none the less.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In land of Somalia, mobocracy rules.[28] Mob can beat up a person and if the person complains to same mob, obvious answer will be, 'there is something wrong with you. Mob can't beat up single person. go home!'. The article 2002 Gujarat riots is still under WP:GANG. Dozens of new users come up to protest but is beaten up by this gang. And admins are responsible for supporting this gang and highly POV article. But still I did drop the stick after long arguments and ban. I forgot those Gujarat articles, those users and admins. I didn't touch any article even after ban was expired. Now another admin came up to undo my edits on another topic because of that ban and threatens another ban. Now what wrong I did here to introspect? Abhi (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We are talking Wikipedia and not Somalia. While occasionally we do have a group ignoring the purpose of wikipedia and violating policy, I don't personally see any evidence here that has happened. On the ANI link you provided this is a content dispute. This was the wrong forum for that. Wikipedia:GANG#False_accusations_of_tag-teaming you should read that BTW. I've seen many new users ascribe an action to a tag team but generally they are wrong. Where has this admin threatened you?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

When I went to ANI, non-admin user closed thread and insisted to discuss admin right abuse issue on his talkpage as if he is admin or arbcom member. When I came here, you, another non-admin user have jumped in. I wrote long reply to you but you didn't bother to read that. And it seems, you have not bothered to click on my username. As you asked, here is accusations of lie, POV editing and threat of admin Bgwhite: "NEVER blank an article. NEVER lie about an article not being referenced for the reason of the PROD when it was referenced before your blanking. The references are valid. Stop your POV editing on LGBT articles. References do not need to be peer reviewed. I suggest you step away from any LGBT articles. After the totally inexcusable actions on Lesbian Association of India, I'm not inclined to give you any leeway."[29] Now 'I suggest you step away from this discussion. After the totally inexcusable actions of not reading my 'wall of text' reply, I'm not inclined to give you any leeway'. And I haven't typed, 'if you don't... Abhi (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI contains both Admins and experienced user. Experienced users to my understanding may close a case once it is resolved. I actually contacted you on your talk page about this matter. I see no reason that arbcom would take this case. You posted a giant wall text here to respond to me. I'm not going to read it. Some of the stop that posted on that webpage was untrue. I do think you did this in good faith but it was still untrue. It's not really a leap for Bgwhite to assume bad faith with that edit. I hope in the future they will be more careful and assume good faith but I don't really see that they did anything wrong. Consider going to WP:AAU They may be able to help acclimate you to wikipedia. To me your response above implies that if you don't get your way you will quit wikipedia. I feel that is very childish. I expect if you get any reaction at all to that it will imply "Goodbye." Again as for BG White and their response. I see it two ways, either they were talking as an editor and they will thwart your efforts to push POV or they were talking as an admin and were reacting to your vandalism. They can really tell you better than I. Have you asked? But as for me this conversation is over. Have a good day.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Last year admin Qwyrxian supported user Darkness Shines, gave me threat of topic ban and eventually materialized it. My apprehensions are not baseless. Now admin Bgwhite seems to know user vanamonde93 who edits '2002 Gujarat riots'. Please have a look at this thread on vanamonde93's talkpage. Bgwhite says, "Looks like they didn't learn from the first go around, sigh." To which vanamonde93 replied, "And no, they have certainly not learned, although the t-ban was only for three months, so it has expired." Combined with threat on my talkpage, any rational person will figure out that they have 'second go' of topic ban for me in their mind. Bgwhite or any other admin has not explained anything about his accusations of lie, POV editing or threat. As a wikipedia editor, I am confused which articles I can edit without inviting POV tag. Admins should give me list of topics for which I have been banned to sort out this confusion. You say that arbcom will not take my request. Jimbo don't have any say in such matters, I think. I will just inform him and then I will retire. Pls do a favor to me. I can't edit this long thread from mobile browser. Pls remove those 'psychotic' words I used above for admins and I am sorry for that. Thanks for your help. Abhi (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this request?

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:

• First, if we're going to talk about me, can there be a separate request about that?[31] (scroll down to second, smaller paragraph)
• Second, is he supposed to post in my section?[32] (Maybe that's not my section?)

Today, he has accused me of POV editing on another article talk page.[33]

Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The matter that you brought to wp:ARE is still open. Yes they are still working on your request. Because you opened the request it is appropriate to discuss you there. Allow me to forward you to that pink instruction section of wp:ARE. It clearly brings scrutiny to you as the requester. Your new addition about his statement about POV editing should be added there it seems to me.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the scrutiny as long as I have the opportunity to defend myself, though I have worried about how to do so, since I have already used up my 500 words and 20 diffs. Any advice on that? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ask one of the reviewing admins for advice and permission to post more than 500 words. Limit your discussion to process questions though would be my suggestion. That is when takjing to the reviewing admins on their page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

IP area still being swamped by socks

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)

I don't really see how this is an arbitration-related matter. Socks are a problem in many areas, and the only thing that can be done about them is to make individual WP:SPI reports with enough evidence for administrators to act upon.  Sandstein  04:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't seriously believe that SPI is effective against the swarm of puppetmasters and it is related to WP:ARE as a large number of cases are caused by socks. Sepsis II (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein again is correct that this is not an arbitration matter. But the traditional solution doesn't work, or rather it means:'Please forget article-editing, dear editor, and spend several hours each day checking each edit over dozens of articles of the socks that turn up each day'. The area is becoming unfriendly to editors who actually work articles, and tolerant by default of obvious banned or meatpuppets of banned editors who have obviously ratcheted up the disruption. This is obvious and yet there is no relief. That is not in Sandstein's area of competence: it is a technical matter requiring a change of rules.Nishidani (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I just thought some of this page's watchers might be interested in be a part of improving ARBPIA, guess I was wrong. Sepsis II (talk) 06:40, 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)

Could be related to Ministry of Hasbara funded Israeli university courses? Sepsis II (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think the ARBPIA sanctions need to be looked at again because they are encouraging and enabling sockpuppetry and giving an advantage to those using multiple accounts over good faith editors. There have also been a number of sanctions recently of long term good faith editors after filings at admin boards by obvious sock accounts. Sockpuppetry is more of a problem than edit warring in the topic area so I am not sure it makes sense to have a sanction regime (i.e 1rr) that tackles edit warring but encourages sockpuppetry. Dlv999 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• We desperately need more restrictions against these "throw-away-socks" which appear at regular intervals. (And we *know* there has been "recruiting" going on here). I suggest that if an editor has less that 250 edits, you might revert them without it counting as your 1RR. So you might revert, say a Franken Farther, without being "tied down" for the next 24 hours. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

These type of throw away sockpuppet accounts a dime a dozen[34][35][36] on any controversial topic in the IP area. Dlv999 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I wish I could see evidence of editorial concern from 'both sides'. None is apparent, giving the impression, which troubles me, that the plaintiffs above represent one side to a dispute. It can be read that way. It can also be read as reflecting the probability that most sockpuppettering and IP one-off edits comes from one direction. This is my assumption, based on 7al years of working here, and I think that the only way this can be handled is, as Sandstein suggests, to compile lists of drive-by editors, sockpuppet suspects, meatpuppet suspects, regardless of which POV is being apparently supported, so that, eventually, administrators or the ARBPIA committee can, at a glance, see the dimensions of the problem. To do this in a manner that is above suspicion of manipulation would require, as suggested, editors identified as concerned with ensuring the precise and neutral presentation of an Israeli perspective also to help out. Perhaps they could comment here, since the silence makes this legitimate concern appear to be a group POV-driven drive by editors often identified as partisans for the other side (a tendentious simplification in my view - what is desired is an equable and level 'playing' field). Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• If there is evidence (preferably checkuser-supported) that there is a systemic and widespread sockpuppetry problem in this area, then either discretionary sanctions or a Committee amendment request might be able to do something about it (for example, a revert restriction for new single-purpose accounts). But this would likely involve an amount of evidence and discussion that is beyond the scope of a single AE request. I suggest that a group of established editors representing viewpoints associated with both sides of the conflict should jointly set up a RfC to collect evidence and discuss possible solutions. One or several of these solutions could then be implemented through the arbitration or arbitration enforcement processes.  Sandstein  16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As was mentioned, restrictions on reverting, such as WP:1RR, encourage the use of throw-away sockpuppet accounts. I haven't edited in this area. Are the sockpuppets registered illegitimate users? (If they are unregistered, semi-protection will work.) Also, because of the requirement that an editor be notified of discretionary sanctions, sockpuppets are a way to avoid discretionary sanctions. (They don't avoid the rules against sockpuppetry.) I don't have an obvious answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

They are registered, throw-away accounts, and they are a huge problem. (Dlv999 listed some above.) One example for today: Halhul, which is an article I have written a large amount of the history of, had this one today, removing stuff with the edit line "speculative and un-referenced". As anyone can check: it was referenced. I reverted it, and is therefor in effect unable to edit it more for the next 24 hours. And to Sandstein: you do realise that any RfC will be swarmed by socks? Huldra (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the WP:1RR imposed directly by WP:ARBPIA, or is it imposed on a case-by-case basis by uninvolved administrators? If it is directly imposed by the ArbCom, then it illustrates unintended (but predictable after the fact) consequences, because by locking honest editors into one revert, it permits dishonest editors to use throw-away socks. If so, maybe the ArbCom should be asked by motion to reconsider WP:1RR as making life easier for dishonest editors and harder for honest ones. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Halhul almost immediately after Huldra's edit had two newbies step in (71.125.245.49/Allisonraty (talk | contribs), with a violent smear of the town. Fortunately I too had the page bookmarked. I expunged the nonsense. And was reverted, in good faith by Banjohunter (see his talk page), who didn't catch what was going on, being unfamiliar with the background. Result. I can't fix it, and hope Bh, seeing the problem outlined on his talk page, will revert. I have almost a thousand pages bookmarked and see dozens of problems like this everyday, and can't cope with more than a few percent. Neither can anyone else. I'm fine with wikipedia's open-door policy of recruitment. But some remedy for what serious contributors have to put up with, unnecessarily because of the lack of a prophylactic rule preventing such chronic abuses, should now be considered, because of the attrition it causes to good editors (I exclude myself), and to the encyclopedic aims of wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just trying to straighten out some anonymous edits and get a neutral pov on the Halhul page. I did not realize there was some sort of edit war going on. Nishidani made the reasonable point that the event was not connected to the village, so I reverted my edit. Banjohunter (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are forgiven, such things are easily done. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: WP:1RR is imposed directly by WP:ARBPIA, and it is valid for all articles in the Israel/Palestine area. Which means virtually every article I edit (I mostly write history on places in Israel/Palestine.) I have about 3,500 articles on my watch-list, and have lost count on how many throw-away accounts I see each day. I have worked in this area for 9 years, and while the 1RR rule has mostly been very beneficial (IMO), it has also had exactly the unintended side-effects that you state. I would absolutely not remove the 1RR. What we need is a rule for more established editors to be able to revert those throw-away accounts, without becoming tied up for 24 hours. Therefore, my suggestion that we could revert anyone with less than a certain number of edits, without it being counted against ones "1RR"-quota. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, WP:1RR is an honorable experiment that has partially failed. ArbCom should be asked to revise it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon:The WP:1RR must be amended, before it drives all content creators away. (But not changed back to 3RR!) Take the Halhul -example. Both Nishidani and I are long-term content contributors to the article, see here. It normally gets 20-30 views pr day. Yesterday the bodies of the 3 kidnapped israelis was found in a field near Halhul, feelings are apparently running high, and pageviews for the article hit 1200. Lots of socks and un-registered edit the article page, but due to 1RR I cannot even revert slander like this, as I had "used up" my 1RR-quota for the day. (Btw, there is no proof, or even indication that the kidnappers are from Halhul. The suspected named kidnappers are from Hebron.) Things like this happen all the time in the I/P area; some article gets in the news, lots of page-views and lots of socks vandalise the article. And we are helpless to stop it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:25, 1 July 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´m really ignorant here: how many edits do you need before you can edit semi-protected articles? Huldra (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

10, and that's why some socks make 10 edits to their own user page before going on a frenzy. It keeps out the editor's who follow rules, not the one's who don't. Sepsis II (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I want 0RR on new ARBPIA focused accounts until 500 edits and 6 months, a ban on these accounts from filing reports related to ARBPIA articles, and that accounts under 0RR can be reverted without counting towards 1RR which I want to stay for all experienced editors.

This would not hurt the thousands of true new accounts/IPs who make a productive edit or two, but the "new" editors who make 20 reverts within 10minutes of joining wikipedia would be quickly blocked and even a swarm would not take over an article per 1RR as they currently do. Sepsis II (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If an article is semi-protected, then non-registered can´t edit, can they? Non-registered occasionally do good edits, even in the I/P area (here is an non-registered correcting my blunder, when I mixed up Beitin and Beita <facepalm>). If so, I would prefer something along the lines of what Sepsis suggests. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The rule is 10 edits and 4 days. That's long enough to slow down someone who wants to create an account on an ad-hoc basis for joining a current dispute. Also, IP editors are disallowed altogether. If 10 edits to user space are enough that should be changed (where does one go to request it??) – it should be 10 edits to article or project space. Although your proposals would be better, the addition of another layer of rules worries me. It is already hard for ordinary editors to keep track of everything. Zero^talk 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Then semi-protected would certainly be an improvement from today. I am concerned about two issues, though. Firstly, un-registered sometimes do useful work. Secondly, (and most importantly) when I see the huge disruption/waste of time caused by quacking ducks (a couple of the more belligerent ones active presently could easily sail through 10 edits and 4 days) I wonder if the "extra layer" isn´t worth it. Presently it is difficult to do any useful work with this duck-army around. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If an edit count entry requirement for the topic area was introduced it should probably be based on manual edits rather edits made with tools like STiki. Many of the people who come here as socks wouldn't think twice about exploiting whatever tools are available to provide cover. Semi-protection and the autoconfirmation requirements don't provide useful protection in practice, as can be seen from the data available from the many NoCal (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NoCal100) and AndresHerutJaim (Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_AndresHerutJaim) socks for example. Socks are organized in the sense that they plan ahead and make sure that they have the resources in place in advance. A good example of this is when Precision123 (a Shamir1 sock) switched to the AmirSurfLera account. See the graph of daily and cumulative edits. Precision123's last edit was 2014-05-26.[37] The dramatic change of slope in the graph for AmirSurfLera shortly after that here, probably indicates the switch over from one account to the other. Another example of preparing resources in advanceis NoCal's use of multiple concurrent socks (see the dates in User:Sean.hoyland/socks). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Before I forget, and for those who haven't seen it, there is a little bit of data available that shows the effects of semi-protection among other things for an article of interest to many (confirmed) socks at the time. The data is for 1948 Arab–Israeli War article and talk page between 2012-04-08 and 2013-01-10 (and there's some background info here)

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - article results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - talk page results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War OpenOffice spreadsheet

Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very illuminating, note that the AN/I thread recommended pending changes level 2 protection; "All edits by non-reviewers will require approval before going live." Then, in the madness of mobs, (called Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_1) it was decided that pending changes level 2 would not be implemented anywhere. Insanity. How many more editors must Wikipedia lose before this is implemented? I just saw Carolmooredc stating that she had left the I/P editing "in part because WP:SPI ignored clear evidence of one or more SPA's who probably were socks." Will there soon be only socks left? Sean.hoyland: it is an enormous task, but could you possibly do a few more of those case-stories, and then we could go back to the a new version of Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_1? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes doesn't stop socks. See the last bit of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive#31_January_2013. An edit by Methwoldknowing, a sock, was approved. Not only were they a sock, they are a fanatical Israel supporter who, off wiki at various sites, says things like "I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel." or "lol 'palestine' does not exist, never did and never will" or "Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim." or "I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel."

The original account/sockmaster and socks made thousands of edits to Wikipedia and I think they were one of the top contributors to many articles in the topic area. Like every sock I've encountered in ARBPIA, they lied about their sockpuppetry without hesitation, over and over again. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 4 July 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)

Such a set of rules would be open to abuse. Unless serious accounts can revert socks without counting towards 1RR the socks will make multiple reverts and we could do nothing about it and if we were to do something about it the socks would open a case at WP:3rrn where we would be blocked. Sepsis II (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It could open it to abuse. This does though open a requirement to talk. You can open an RFC. Ect, Ect, ect. But then let's tweak that a little. 1RR per change per day and standard 1RR.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice on informing others

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)

I am thrilled to be able to answer a question from you, considering the scores of questions you have thoughtfully answered for me in the past. There may be a better way to present the information you are seeking, it is at first, slightly obscure. Nevertheless, on the main page, within the reddish instruction box, click on "Click here for instructions on submitting a case request" and it will expand into more information, including the specific template you are asking about. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted {{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)

It does seem tailored for "parties to a case". An additional parameter seems to be missing, in my opinion. I'd love to tighten it up a bit.—John Cline (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A test case modification

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)

Neither an admin or an arbitrator, but should the "recently filed" be left out for mentions? I.E. "You have been mentioned in a request for arbitration..." I can see someone being mentioned after a case started being more likely than a party being added late. PaleAqua (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, "recently filed" would never be at odds with a matter at the "request for arbitration" phase, for they are generally accepted or declined within such a frame of time. Your comment does allude another point however, that being a person mentioned after a case has started. I will include a switch that changes the current verbiage of a "request for arbitration" when #ifexist: shows a case page does exist, it can change to something akin to "you have been mentioned in a case before the Arbitration Committee". I think that is a prudent consideration, and I'll incorporate it into the testcase directly. Thank you for your feedback.—John Cline (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have primarily completed this task. I further modified it to accommodate requests for clarification and amendment requests as well. I will continue testing various substitutions and in the absence of a decry not to proceed, I will begin updating its live debut within a few days. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove comments

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)

Logging AC/DS notices

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)

Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#2014. Second Quantization (talk) 19:43, 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)

You will notice on the logging page that notifications do not happen very often in a given year. This is because people are generally notified when the person believes there is an issue, and often this is substantiated in the logging itself. Generally the person is expected to use common sense and be uninvolved in the specific dispute. Some administrators claim only they can give notices, this is wrong (unless policy has changed recently), Second Quantization (talk) 19:47, 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)

The above heading has the word 'logging' in it which is enough to get me started on the non-logging rule that we have due to the new DS system which employs an edit filter. See an Arbcom motion of 3 May 2014, 'Discretionary sanctions (2014)'. Anyone who is planning to issue an alert under WP:ARBPS should get familiar with WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. The {{Ds/alert}} template is what is currently used, and it is stated to be the only valid method. Alerts should no longer be logged in the arbitration case according to User:AGK, who created the edit filter that does the recording of alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) notified, EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, forgot about that bit, logging is now automatic. I am thinking of proposing that alerting be automatic as well, but I just had the idea a few minutes ago so it's not exactly ready for prime time yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox There was discussion about that either on the DS review talk page or somewhere related - a bot which issues an alert automatically if someone edits a page under DS. From memory, it was shot down for a few reasons, such as if it's only a minor grammatical fix then it's pointless and annoying to be altered. One solution was that you would only be alerted if you made a change more or less than x bytes, there was opposition to that because sometimes that person would need to be alerted (eg an edit war over changing one instance of Israeli to Palestinian is a fairly small change in terms of bytes but big in terms of using DS). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

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

• Edit warring [][][][][]
• Personal attack []

JohnWhorfin

• Battleground conduct [][][]
• Incivility [][][][][]
• Soapboxing [][][]

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)

In general it's a good idea and a good practice, but patterns of abuse don't always lend themselves to this way. Second Quantization (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

AUSC appointments: nominate now

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)

Confusing layout

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)

Fixed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Liberté

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)

Yes, knowing when to walk away is one of the skills to learn if one wishes to edit with a "level of professionalism", especially if one constantly edits in and around contentious areas.

Personally, I rarely edit in contentious areas, but I also carefully avoid any semblance of professionalism, as is appropriate for an amateur. (In the old days, they used to divide us into Gentlemen and players.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes (by Agnosticaphid, 29 May 2013), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Peace music on the Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

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, Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Bug in Template

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)

According to the docs on the template page, it's "e-e". Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing Title of Requested Case

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)

Hi Robert - I'm sorry about the delay in replying. I would say that no editor should be changing Arbcom pages, besides committee members and clerks. It's easy enough to request a change, giving reasons, at the clerk's page. Changing titles is inherently distracting from the actual business of solving the dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 10:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more helpful to examine the actual edit so the question can be considered in context. Looking at the arbitrator's comments that had been made so far in the case request, it was clear to me that the central point of the case request had been completely misunderstood as one of swearing, and not one of racial and ethnic slurs, which are treated a little differently in the policy.

I was in transit at the time --you can see my statement about availability in my early comments in the request. I had thought about discussing the issue with the person who initiated the request, but a quick look at their contribution history showed that they had been inactive for some days, so I quickly decided on the WP:BOLD approach, and left a long enough edit summary to explain the action. Now I see from a comment made recently on Jimbo's page, that the initiator of the request had been thinking along the same lines. It's a pity that these issues were hidden from the Committee at the time by individuals who simply reverted without opening any discussion. Likewise, I see little value in templating and accusations of bad faith by participants in the case request process. If someone is participating in the case, they should not be clerking.

I did look for some statement of who was clerking for that particular case request. After I saw all the activity in the page history, I even checked the request page, and the main arbitration committee landing page to see if I could find a list of current clerks' names, but I didn't see anything. I have always found the use of clerks to be very helpful, even when they are being obtuse and bureaucratic, they help keep things neutral and in order. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

ARCA instructions encouraging ban violations

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)

Grave concern with Arbitration clarification process

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))

Redirects

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)

Your shortcut is the only one pointing to that case, so I assume that there never was one. I would suggest that an ArbCom clerk add it to the case page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Discretionary Sanctions Under WP:ARBAP

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)

Paragraph Headings under WP:ARBAP

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)

Misconduct in the Christianity topic

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)

No, they can't.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Please ask Ret.Prof to remove them. He has plenty of other diffs he can use to craft an opening statement. Ignocrates (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I just have on his talk page,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

31 hour blocks

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).

Indeed, they seem to be quite a recent innovation...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not anything new and some invention of ArbCom. 31 hours is one of the standard pre-set times in the drop-down menu when issuing a block. It is my understanding that the original purpose was to deal with vandals, who are often schoolchildren. Of you block them for 24 hours, they can just come back at the same time the next day when they have access to school computers again and vandalize. If you block them for 31 hours they will have to do something else with that period of time the next day. So, it's just admin shorthand for a short block of a troublesome person. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Turns out I issued a few 31 hour blocks myself. I'm still left wondering (slightly) what the meaning in this case is, maybe saying "don't act like a naughty highschooler"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Very lateral! Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if clarification or enforcement issue

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)

Not sure if clarification or enforcement issue, neither. That's a content dispute and it's outwith ArbCom's remit. Dave Giuliano ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• has cropped up repeatedly in threads at Radical feminism

• loosely bandied about on talk pages

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))

Sorry, I also should have quoted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Equality_and_respect: "Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions." The term is applied almost exclusively to women who do not follow a certain ideological bent; others have felt the discretionary sanctions in this case do apply to women. Otherwise perhaps WP:ANI is the first step, referencing that Arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely -not- intended to demean another editor, but you calling it a slur is just disingenuous, I don't care why you think it's a slur. It's not, it's an acronym meaning Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. It rather accurately portrays the subset of radical feminists which do not believe in the notion of trans folk. Tutelary (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• If (do I read this correctly?) the only conduct evidence is in emails, and thus private, then such emails should be sent privately to arbcom for their consideration. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia talk page usage (as I clarified through formatting above) which labels individuals in an article (specifically or generally) with a slur term that has been used outside wikipedia in emails. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It is a very useful clarification, and I think as a result I will have to read around the topic more thoroughly before making up my personal opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still nothing that ArbCom needs to deal with, in my opinion. If the term TERF is being used as a personal attack, then the person using it in that fashion may, depending on the circumstances, be sanctioned, but I have seen nothing proving that the community is not capable of dealing with this issue. Also, please do not take for granted that the expression is a slur; as far as I know, that's not the current consensus. Dave Giuliano ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:29, 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)

I would say just revoke your request. I haven't collected the many links that show how obnoxiously the term is used which certainly would clarify the issue for those who are unfamiliar with it. However, the complainant is usually the one to go to ANI. Also, it occurs to me now that given the only person using it right now (as opposed to approving of its use) evidently also is promoting Men's Rights, the issue may be more complicated. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:53, 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)

That doesn't appear to be the issue. The issue appears to be using the term on talk pages when talking about how to add related content in the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat sweeping to describe it as an obvious slur. The history of the term is fairly well documented, as well as the dispute over its usage. It is certainly the case that there exist people who would be likely to describe themselves as radical feminists who contend that transgender women should be excluded from the definition of women. I am not aware of any radical feminist Wikipedians who take this viewpoint, but I haven't asked. I am not sure whether it is claimed that this is a slur because it describes a viewpoint that is found repugnant, or because the repugnance inheres to the term.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, should have mentioned someone else brought it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment where Arbitrators have pretty much opined that if it looks like it's used in anything but a strict context regarding RS in the article, it may be seen as offensive, especially if it seems to be used in a derisive tone towards individuals in articles or especially other editors. Context matters. But at least it is clear it can't be thrown about derisively as it was a few times on that talk page (and perhaps others). So if some new person comes along and keeps doing it despite being informed of this clarification and arbitration, editors could seek recourse. And now we know they have admins they might go to. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding Parties to a Case Request

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 just notified a few others as SPECIFICO suggested from the previous Arbom case. A few more on that list needs to be told. Look at my recent contrib history to find the ones I notified. Sorry I couldnt finish the whole thing now, but I have to run.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

At the least, Tarc and Sitush are "involved" here per this recent ANI. Also the parties to the Radical Feminism edit wars and Arbcom TERF issue might be considered involved (I'm less familiar with that one.) SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Page format

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)

Procedural close

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)

It's waiting for the Committee to tell the clerks it's ready to be closed and archived. Last I checked they were wanting more arbs to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. From this I assume that there is no fixed procedure with time limits, but the decision on what is an appropriate amount of time to leave a case open for possible further comments is left as a judgement for committee members. For anyone who stumbles across this observation, I would highlight that a month without comment is bound to feel like a long time left hanging in the wind for the subject of a case; it's probably an area where we should take care to be seen to be trying to be nice to those with cases created against them with the associated stress of worrying about pending requests for punitive action. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, in some cases it can also hold up the improvement of the encyclopaedia as people hold off making edits until the arbitration process finishes so they don't accidentally disrupt anything. At the very least a note from an arb or a clark indicating that this hasn't been forgotten but is waiting for X would go a long way towards mitigating these sorts of issues. Ideally, I'd like to see every open arbitration matter (cases, requests, clarifications, etc) receive at least one comment from at least one arbitrator every week - even if that is just a holding comment saying "we're waiting for a party to get back to us" or "we're deliberating privately about this currently" or "we're waiting for more arbitrators to comment" or "I haven't forgotten you, but I had personal issues take all my time this week. I intend to post some proposals for comment on Thursday.". Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the committee is a touch backlogged presently, a number of arbs (especially the hard working ones!) are much more inactive than usual, and that has put us behind. I can't say I agree with the idea of a weekly update, unless it were done by a co-ordinating arbitrator, a role which isn't really happening at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 12:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity doesn't come easy to some people. They have to work hard at mastering it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Function

Is the Arbitration Committee essentially a court of law? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Limitations of Arbitration; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Wikipedia is not a court of law. The Arbitration Committee was created to resolve certain types of disputes on this website, which the editors cannot solve any other way. The Committee also serves as the appeal of last resort for indefblocked or banned users, appoints editors to certain roles, and looks into matters that cannot be discussed openly on Wikipedia because they involve private information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clearing that up. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)