Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Arbitration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, To Whom This May Concern,

If you look on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Is_Anybody_Down%3F# I have added information to this discussion, as this has been an ongoing issue of my client. There has been a discussion about the validity of this page before, and they had not provided any validity, and instead, they made excuses to keep violating my client, and had only bullied and harassed the user's accounts that disagreed with them and had gotten them banned from Wikipedia instead of being respectful towards the people involved in the discussion page. They have wiped the old discussion page clean from what I can see, and there is no record of their misbehavior towards the people questioning the content of the linked page.

Help with this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time and attention of this matter. Silverscure (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not an appropriate request for this page. You may seek help at the WP:Teahouse or at the administrators' noticeboard. Izno (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Original discussion

I notice that "Armenia-Azerbaijan 2" is listed under general sanctions. Does this mean general sanctions apply to any editor, once notified, editing any article related to this topic? Or does it mean an administrator may place a notice on the talk page of an article related to this topic, and then editors may be notified of the sanctions? What brought this to my attention a section at the reliable sources noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Editor rejecting Basic Books, Kent State University Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich as reliable sources. I have not made any edits related to this topic. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So this is confusing and I'm going to do my best to explain it but also I suspect I won't fully answer your question. General sanctions describe restrictions to editors in a topic. They can be placed by either the community or ArbCom. When they're placed by ArbCom they're a designated "contentious topic". When they're placed by the community they go by different names. In the case of Aermenia-Azerbaijian there are both ArbCom imposed restrictions and community imposed restrictions. The rules about ArbCom's restrictions can be found at WP:CTOP. The community rules can vary based on a number of factors. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Original discussion

Is this supposed to be on the talk page and not the main page? Just double checking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No, motions are archived here and then off to the /Archive pages. Izno (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@MJL, I think the infobox motion did not pass. Did you mean to mark that one as enacted? Just double checking. If I'm way off just ignore me :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Uhh.. just pretend that didn't happen. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Are workshop pages being phased out from the arbitration process, or are they being selectively excluded from certain ArbCom cases for specific reasons? I ask because I've noticed that a handful of recent cases (e.g. AlisonW and the currently ongoing Industrial agriculture) do not have workshop pages, and I don't remember any community discussion or formal notice from the committee that workshop exclusion is a procedural decision subject to ArbCom discretion. If somebody monitoring this page would mind providing a link to any relevant discussion on this topic, I'd really appreciate it. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Timetable and case structure. The link at the start of the section points to the motion that resulted in that section. There were a series of motions that were discussed about being more flexible with the case structure. isaacl (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Isaac. 🙂 Kurtis ^(talk) 23:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

When the committee first started talking about changing this to at least sometimes not have them, I found out that there never was a requirement for them to begin with. Some arb invented the idea out of thin air way back when and it just kind of became a standard thing that was expected, with no actual mandate, so that's why there was no need for a formal change to WP:ARBPOL.

They were originally added as a space for the arbs themselves to draft the proposed decision, but the arbitration wiki took over that function thirteen or fourteen years ago and workshops became instead a place for literally anyone to draft their preffered version of a proposed decision.

I personally find that they cause more problems than they solve in cases that focus on only one or two editors, in particular admin conduct cases. They tend to turn into one user after another proposing basically the same fairly obvious outcomes. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, while WP:ECR has recently been amended to specifically restrict interactions of non-ECP users on protected talk pages, pages such as WP:GS/RUSUKR have not been amended to reflect this change. Is there a process for these pages to be updated? Please ping in reply. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

GS is a community-managed area. If you believe they should be using the same ECR as arb areas do and thus you wish to update it, WP:AN is the appropriate location to discuss. Izno (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Note community-authorized general sanctions are now discussed at the village pump for proposals, with a notice placed at the administrators' noticeboard (the change was a result of a village pump discussion). isaacl (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

At the ongoing WT:ACN discussion related to Beeblebrox RevelationDirect wrote When I was before ANI and ArbComm for the first time this year, I found Wikipediocracy to be very useful resource to give me context at a confusing time. And not anything specific to my situation; old discussions helped me get a better sense of the patterns whereas I had trouble parsing through the prior cases I read on Wikipedia. This sounds like a failing with the information available here, which is something we should correct - someone should not have to go elsewhere to understand the arbitration process. RD: Were you aware of Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration? If not, the first thing we should do is make that easier to find - do you remember where you were looking/what search terms you were using? Would it have answered your questions? If you did find that, what was it lacking that would have helped you? Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the Guide to Arbitration is great if you are, in the abstract, looking to understand Arbitration. It's much less useful when you are a party to an actual case and are wondering "what am I supposed to do now?". Guerillero's question to candidates about his guide. That reminded me of my own desire to improve the guide. I began some work on the arb's wiki and after some discussion, the current vision is 7 guides designed to help you know, at any given moment, what is going on and the idea is that a party could focus on just the guide they need at that moment rather than trying to understand everything. I've completed my very rough draft of Guide 1. Ultimately I'd love for these guides to be as close to 1000 words (or less) as possible because 5 minutes of reading time for a person at 200 wpm feels reasonable, but the first draft is currently at nearly 1800 words. I'd be very interested to hear what questions RD had as I've done some combing through some cases I drafted (and am thus most familiar with where questions were asked) but more is definitely better. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not RD, but but my answer to most of those questions would be "no". The problem isn't understanding the arbitration process itself, but rather the history and motivations of the individuals involved in such processes. WPO is, among other things, where people go to air grievances and post comments that would get them strung up by their heels for casting aspersions if they said them onwiki. It's true that many of these grievances seem to be sour grapes from editors who were correctly sanctioned or otherwise censured for disruption, but enough of them have merit that I think it's worth reading. It's also true that there's plenty of name-calling and mudslinging, but there's also useful meta-commentary and criticism of the kind that often isn't seen here because people are afraid to be critical of "power users" and long-established institutions in places where they are likely to be quickly dog-piled and shouted down. Barring some dramatic (and in my opinion unlikely) changes in community norms I can't see that functionality being effectively imported onto Wikipedia.

It is very much a mixed bag, and separating the wheat from the chaff can be arduous and at times even demoralizing. I've heard it called "ANI without participation from the accused" which I don't disagree with and I've seen some pretty appalling stuff over there including outing and harassment, but we also have WPO and its regulars to thank for uncovering Qworty's machinations, among other things. I do have quite a few problems with how it's run—namely, I think the admins over there are often far too willing to look the other way when harassment and trash-talking happens over there—but I also think it has its uses, which is why I browse it and occasionally comment. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a lot of questions during ArbComm and the guide answered the factual process ones. It didn't answer other questions that required analyzing ArbComm members mindset though:

1. When is a dispute ripe enough to merit an ArbComm case? Specifically, if an ANI is open but focused on the content dispute instead of the behavior, is that enough?
2. Why are there e-mails to ArbComm when there's not private evidence?
3. To what extent do ArbComm members decide based on evidence in the case?
4. To what extent do ArbComm members decided based on individual past history with editors?
5. Is it unusual to reopen the evidence phase after it is closed?
6. What is the practical purpose of the Workshop phase for an involved party?

While I didn't post these on Wikipediocracy, discussions of old cases touched on these but maybe some essays could be written on Wikipedia instead. Candid analysis of ArbComm performance probably needs to stay on Wikipediocracy though.

And to be clear, I'm not coming from a place of grievance at all here, I was the filing party and I am completely satisfied (although saddened) by the unanimous outcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Just read through both these guides; thank you for posting them! Guerillero's comes closer to the practical "what do I do" guidance I would have been looking for from a participant perspective. Both sections on the Workshop page still seems like inside baseball to me though, but maybe that phase is meant to help the arbitrators more than participants.

I appreciate both of your efforts to make the process clearer, no matter what anyone at Wikipediocracy says about you! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am at the very beginning of my efforts and so this is helpful. I will say that the tone an individual can do (ala Guerillero) is different than the tone of something "official". But knowing what worked and didn't is helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect I have now done my first draft of guide 2. I am curious to hear if you feel like I've addressed question 1. I, of course, also welcome feedback from others. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that does provide a lot of clarity for question 1. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect can you explain what you mean by Why are there e-mails to ArbComm when there's not private evidence?. I have a guess given what case you were involved with but want to make sure I understand. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Sure, during the only case I was in, all of my communication to discuss things like word counts and evidence or process questions were on the case talk pages but there were multiple references there of another involved party sending e-mails to the committee. The official guide mentions here that e-mail is used for private evidence so I assumed that such evidence was being submitted.  I found out later that those e-mails were just the same type of mundane procedural requests I was making on the case talk pages. (You have the actual e-mails while I only have public posts discussing them, so obviously your view will be more complete here.)

It would have been helpful to know that, based on the involved party’s personal preferences, e-mails can be used interchangeably with the case talk pages to communicate to the Arb Comm during a case. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I expected it to be but the details you gave really are helpful as it gives a more complete explanation than the sort of simple one I had in my head. I'm trying to figure out how to appropriately write general guidance about this as opposed to edge cases. I'm going to keep noodling on this. As for what's in the official guide now, the reason I'm spending time on this project (and will eventually ask the rest of the committee to spend some time on it) are because of the shortcomings in the current guide. Thanks again, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I can not really comment on WPO but what I know is that for arbitration, especially if the case is about a one person conduct, both sides are expected to come with diffs. Many diffs. Often so many diffs that they can not just be collected within a reasonable time (say a few days unless the party works full-time on collecting diffs), and I guess the filing party in many cases either collects the diffs for a long time off-wiki or knows some place (like certain on-wiki discussions) where the diffs can be taken from relatively quickly. The defending party can comment on the diffs but usually is not able to provide more diffs to add a proper context to the accusation. Collecting such diffs on wiki is prohibited (which I generally find a good thing). Which means in response to the original question - no, no onwiki information is going to help in this case. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not actually prohibited, simply expected to be used promptly at a noticeboard or ArbCom proceeding. WP:POLEMIC: Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. That said, there is little if any benefit to doing this on-wiki instead of in a private text editor. If one just wants to check the formatting and stuff, paste it into a sandbox and hit "Show preview" without saving it on-site.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

At WP:ARCA, the instructions box mentions and links to WP:Discretionary sanctions still, instead of CTOP. Would just fix it, but I know ArbCom is skeptical about random editors messing with their page content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see any reasonable place to insert this in the current canvassing discussion. Is there a reason we wouldn't be considering an alternative to a indef complete ban, perhaps a topic ban from PIA, broadly construed? I sort of get the feeling some of these people have been used as not-fully-aware pawns. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Original discussion

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Motions: PIA Canvassing (January 2024)

Original discussion

I filed an article tonight and a user profile Within ten minutes I had three people attacking me The first told me that my user profile was not appropriate. I had written two paragraphs about my professional background as a computer scientist. The other two told me that my submitted article was a conflict of interest. I read the conflict of interest page and it does not meet that. I had written the article about an invention I had made at IBM that is documented and used in text analytics and machine learning as a women in technology. I cited articles. I also wrote about another accomplishment as a women in technology. They said that it was a conflict of interest and just my resume'. There was some very rude language and unprofessional language used, not constructive and disrespectful. Within ten minutes of submitting my article I had three hostile reviews and a rejection. Dawndarasms (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dawndarasms: Hi there! It's so common for people to come to Wikipedia to write about themselves or their own companies that sometimes editors can be curt in their responses. It's not obvious at all that Wikipedia - the encyclopedia anyone can edit - has lots of policies and guidelines around content. Some of them include:

• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide explains that writing about yourself is considered a "conflict of interest"
• Wikipedia:Autobiography discusses how autobiographies are strongly discouraged.
• Wikipedia:User pages discusses what can (and cannot) appear on a user page
• Help:Your first article has lots of information on how to create a draft article

I'm sorry you had a bad experience, and hope this information will help your understanding about Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: Dawndarasms came onto IRC fuming at us and throwing out accusations of people making attacks against her, sending her aggressive emails, etc. We told her we cannot help her because the help she's seeking is out of scope as (1) conduct-related and (2) attempting to litigate an Arbitration. They were also fishing for specific phrases that they could use to support their position. I can provide the relevant log information via email to the Arbitration Committee. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hold on to them for now, Jeske, but if things really kick off they might be useful. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while since I'd been on IRC, but I was on yesterday when Dawndarasms was there (although I don't know how effective I was). Checking out her draft and user contributions led me here, so I took the opportunity to write a longer response than I could on IRC. Maybe she visited IRC more than once? How many thousands of people have this same experience? I wish I could think of some way to better educate people before they spend time creating a "profile" that gets declined/rejected/deleted. GoingBatty (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If the reviewers have time, they have educational opportunities via comments and the decline message. Unfortunately, by the time I see such all I can do is message them with User:deepfriedokra/del 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

PS, the FirstArticle and Autbio welcome templates are available, though sometimes unused. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I request applying arbitration remedies onto talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell as part of the contentious Palestine-Israel articles. I am already seeing some bad-faith activities in the article talk page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear arbitrators and clerks. Because ArbCom cases may have Wikipedia wide implications and to attract editors knowledgeable in the respective topic areas related to this arbitration request, I have publicized it in directly related talk pages.[4], [5], [6] My intention is to involve the community at large of related policy pages in order to attract uninvolved editors quality knowledge in said related areas. Also, editors who watch those pages may have an interest in this case related to the topic they regularly watch. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Knowledgeable how? If you mean as witnesses, they've likely already said their piece. If you mean as subject-matter experts, ArbCom explicitly does not adjudicate content disputes. If you mean as arguing that ArbCom should legislate from the bench, that is explicitly out of their remit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 07:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to post to the talk page of the Guide to Arbitration but it redirects here. I don't know if I should post this proposal here or elsewhere, because the relevant talk page redirects here.

After posting for the first time an arbitration request I realized that some modification is probably in order to the guidance (under Responding to requests) that states,

Each arbitration subpage has its own word count; for requests for an arbitration case, the maximum word count is 500 words, although this can be relaxed, upon request, in the case of parties to the dispute, and especially for the filing party who must usually respond to many comments by the arbitrators

I think there should be a separation between the default word limit for the initial statement and a word limit for responses to other editors, in proportion to the number of editors making comments about the case. Said comments may include sometimes inaccuracies, misinterpretations, lack of proper context, and accusations, which should be able to be addressed by the editor at hand.

As it is, one needs to make a request to the clerks, who may not be available for several hours, hours that the editor could have used to respond to the comments but instead has to wait for even a determination to approve or deny the request. If the request is denied, accusations or inaccuracies that are made in comments by other editors go unaddressed and may be taken as factual when it may not be the case. This situation is certainly not good. It is hard to plan how to use 500 words if one doesn't even know how many responses one is going to need to make. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't be rebutting everything someone says contra your position anyway. The word limits are in place for good reason; any rebuttals could be given in the evidence phase if a case is accepted and a case request should ideally be concise in the first place. The KISS principle applies here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 07:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The 500 word limit is there exactly to prevent what you want to do, ie. reply to absolutely everyone. It functions well and has functioned well for many years. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Others can write anything they want about an editor, even if it is false, inaccurate, lacks context, misinterpreted, malicious, for the arbitrators to admit as part of the process, without the editor at hand being able to provide a refutation or a correction. I have my doubts about the fairness or appropriateness of such a system that provides more value to random word limits for expediency than to apparently proper procedure. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If you feel it's absolutely necessary because you have 100% unquestionable, completely unequivocal evidence that the accusations being made have no basis whatsoever and have run out of word count to present it, you can ask the clerks for more space... but remember, an Arbitration request is specifically not the place to hash out every accusation and counter-accusation; that's for the case itself. If someone is making like five different points as to why you did something wrong, and you feel the need to reply to every single one of those points individually because they're each at-a-glance convincing enough that the arbitrators will likely otherwise choose to accept... then, sorry, they probably do need to accept, because hashing out all those claims and counter-claims is going to require its own case. If you can dismiss the entire case against you in one sentence then you don't need 500 words for it; and if someone is just glaringly making unfounded insinuations or the like, the arbs will see that without you needing to point it out, they're all highly-experienced editors. In the request phase, all the arbs are really looking for are basically "are accusations being made that at least pass a basic sniff test and are serious enough to require our attention" and "is this beyond the community's ability to solve." Massive point-by-point rebuttals aren't going to help with that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the first time Im around in these proceedings so Im unsure how nuances work. In other situations I would say there is a purpose for this or for that. But considering the current case and how many arbitrators are responding, my initial concerns during the blocking process are simply reinforced and as such I'm not sure if nuances are really just nuances or defects in the design. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully request the arbitrators to allow me to respond to their decline statements before closing the case. Sincerely, --Thinker78 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Per point two of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration § Deciding of requests, 24 hours need to elapse after net four or a majority are reached before a request can be actioned. As neither of those conditions have been met, you still have time to make replies, though I will note that you have hit your 500 word limit and will need to request an extension. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I made my request and more than 2 days later I haven't received an answer. I don't know if any clerks are active editors? I mean I know we all are volunteers but still I didn't know there was so much dysfunction at the top level of the dispute resolution process. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

My case was declined. But based on statements by arbitrators Aoidh, I don't think the block appeals are sufficient attempt at prior dispute resolution, Z1720, this should go through a community review, User:Barkeep49, This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI, User:Firefly, On the block, I'm not sure it's one I personally would have made - absent evidence that Thinker78 had made a habit of restoring such comments against the advice of others, and the lack of clarity by User:Moneytrees and User:CaptainEek regarding the block, I opened the case in a lower instance, Wikipedia:Administrative action review #Undue 7 day block by ScottishFinnishRadish against Thinker78.

I am being accused of forum shopping but that's not the case. Administrators reportedly are held to high standards of conduct but there has been no definitive determination as to whether the block by ScottishFinnishRadish against me was legitimate or arbitrary. I provided ample evidence regarding arbitrariness. I may have made a procedural mistake in bringing the case to ArbCom but I urge that an objective determination regarding the block by ScottishFinnishRadish is allowed to proceed in a lower instance at this time, for its proper analysis. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my full comments This does not strike me as appropriate for ArbCom at this time. This would have been better served by going to AN/ANI. There are two possibilities of what would have happened there. Either the community would agree with the admins, or the community would have disagreed with the admins and established a consensus that policies and guidelines apply in the way Thinker is claiming they do. And then if admins didn't respect that consensus it would be maybe be appropriate for ArbCom. I suspect based on the feedback offered here that if this had gone to a community noticeboard that consensus would have supported the admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline against editors who seek to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, in contravention of the neutral point of view policy. But I think that Wikipedia also needs an essay about editors who seek to Right Small Wrongs that they think have been done to them. Within the past two weeks, one editor has been banned for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of a block (for restoring troll posts), and another editor has been indefinitely blocked for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of the deletion of off-topic material. I need to to file my taxes, and then will be traveling, or I would start the essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What an interesting idea. I look forward to reading your essay. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 - It is in draft at User:Robert McClenon/Righting Small Wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 - I am about to move it into project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Original discussion

Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing was declined. In that amendment request, I raised concerns about TenPoundHammer's blank-and-redirects (BLARs) and asked whether to request a BLAR topic ban in a separate amendment request. I did not receive an answer to that question. @Guerillero: (link), @Firefly: (link), and @Aoidh: (link) mentioned concerns about the redirect in opposing the relaxing of the topic ban, while @Primefac: (link) had "no major concerns" about the redirects. Did the Arbitration Committee consider the BLAR topic ban request and decide against it? I would like advice about whether to file a separate amendment request for the BLAR topic ban. I considered asking the community to review the redirect issue but have not because this is a conduct dispute that previously reached arbitration. Cunard (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

And if a topic ban would not fly, could a "this-many-per-day" restriction be a possibility? BOZ (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I never received a reply to my query about whether the redirects were causing further issues, which is why I made the statement you link to above. If you think that TPH should be restricted from BLAR, you should start a discussion in the usual places. Personally speaking, however, nothing in your statement indicated that the "disruptive" clauses of WP:ATD-R or WP:BLAR have been met, and in fact I find the response in the thread you referenced in your statement to be an indication that TPH isn't going to be disruptive if their redirects are reverted. You might not like that it is being done, but I am not seeing the same behavioural and conduct issues in their actions that led to the original topic bans. Primefac (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The disruptive editing does not take place after the redirects are reverted. The disruptive editing takes place when TenPoundHammer continues to redirects articles on notable topics even after being asked to stop. This violates Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Does "you should start a discussion in the usual places" include Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? Or did the Arbitration Committee already decide against imposing a BLAR topic ban request in the recently closed amendment request? Cunard (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the Committee, but I personally do not see this as an issue requiring us to weigh in at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you do not view TenPoundHammer's BLARs as problematic, but I thank you for responding to my questions. I pinged several arbitrators who mentioned concerns about the BLARs when opposing the relaxing of the topic ban. I would like to hear their perspectives regarding whether filing a separate amendment request would be considered a duplicate of the recently declined amendment request. It would answer why arbitrators did not propose a BLAR topic ban there (were the BLARs not considered problematic enough, was a topic ban amendment request not the right venue for proposing expanding the sanctions, or were there other reasons). Cunard (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I am waiting for a reply from three of the arbitrators I pinged above. I am also pinging Barkeep49 (talk · contribs), a drafting arbitrator for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing, who suggested that the motion should include a ban on proposed deletions before I presented the evidence about the redirects. Barkeep49, would filing a separate amendment request about the BLARs be considered a duplicate of this declined amendment request? Cunard (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally think it should be a separate amendment, or perhaps a discussion first at AN/I. BOZ (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I am going to give you mixed feedback here. I had not looked deeply into the evidence you presented at the ARCA as I had not voted and was not planning to vote for the motion being considered. I had presumed that it might be the kinds of "deeply researched" sources you often present at AfD. I have now looked at the sources and they're definitely not that but are instead are easily findable quality reliable sources. So I am personally troubled and would consider further sanctions/restrictions if asked at ARCA. However, I can't help but wonder based on the feedback of Primefac above that other arbs who were paying more close attention don't see it as much of a problem as I do. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the evidence. This gives me an indication that a topic ban amendment request would not be a duplicate. I've posted a new amendment request. Cunard (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hoping to avoid a whole thing, and maybe this has been addressed already. WP:CTOP says there has to be a clear consensus (bolding in original) to overturn a CTOP sanction, but Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement says "clear and substantial". Is a bolded clear substantial? Has the threshold changed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the standard was deliberately changed from "clear and substantial" to "clear" when Discretionary Sanctions became Contentious Topics. If so, then that would mean the procedures page is simply out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I also suspect this is the case. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Might this apply more broadly than to contentious topics? Perhaps, in that case, the clear and substantial requirement applies to non-CT enforcement? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

So it would be clear and substantial to overturn a sanction based on an Arbcom placed iban, tban, or 1rr, but simply clear for a regular CTOP sanction? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be my understanding. Of course, this may not be the intended meaning and in this case I think the arbs should weigh in on whether the language should be updated for non-CTOP based enforcement actions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just filed a request for clarification, using the built-in process at WP:ARCA. The {{Arbitration clarification request}} template tells you to remove certain lines if the request does not concern a specific case, but if you don't give a title paramater, it puts code in the section header, and if you create a title but remove the other two parameters, it auto-generates them anyway, meaning you have to remove them again after posting, as I just did. Seems like this could use some tweaking to make it more user-friendly. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll put this on my list of things to look at. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

When was it decided that the number of edits needed to edit the talk page should be the same as to edit the article? It doesn't make any sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit 181.98.62.149 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the log. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The logs don't provide an answer to the question. Where is the discussion where the decision was reached to only allow extended confirmed users to participate on talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

[7] is where, and that is an Arbitration motion, not an AE thread. (Despite what the log says, I can't find anywhere the protection was discussed on AE in the timeframe provided; it was likely done ad hoc as a discretionary sanction.) It should be noted that motion only became a thing because the talk page was practically unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an issue for Arbitration/Requests. Referred elsewhere.

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C.

In the article about Glasgow Rangers Football Club, the "Founded" date is stated to be March 1872.

This should say June 2012 to reflect the reformation of the phoenix club in 2012 when the original club were liquidated.

Similar articles such as Airdrieonians FC and Gretna FC show this date as being the date the new club was founded after a company liquidation occurred.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_F.C._2008

The change of name in Airdrieonians is not sufficient enough to state a new club was founded as this is evidenced by the Manchester United article where a name change from Newton Heath is stated at the foundation section, but the "Founded" date is still said to be 1878.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C.

Therefore, the changing of a name is not regarded as being a foundation of a club with Man United, so therefore wouldn't be for Airdrieonians.

This therefore shows the 2002 date for Airdrieonians is not related to any name changes, but is in fact based upon Liquidation of the old company which owned the original Airdrieonians FC.

Therefore, as that is the case, for consistency, the Rangers FC article "Founded" date should say 2012, as that is when one company liquidated and a phoenix club was created which then had to apply for a new membership to the Scottish football pyramid system.

I have raised this in the "Talk" section, however, I feel the issue is dismissed as Rangers are a much more popular club than Airdrieonians and Gretna and the decisions are made differently to appease a larger fans base. I also believe the people deciding what is "correct" are likely to be Rangers supporters who wish to pretend liquidation of the old company didn't happen.

Please resolve this inconsistency to show a similar treatment for Rangers foundation date to clubs in a similar position like Airdrieonians and Gretna. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. If you'd really like to begin an arbitration case, you can do so here, but I think you would have better luck following the suggestions for dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention Arbitration explicitly is for conduct matters (i.e. user behaviour), not content matters such as what you're complaining about. Arbitration will not touch content disputes, and regularly remands those to the community. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Seconding (or thirding) the comment that this page is the wrong page to raise this issue. Perhaps there is a relevant wikiproject whose members might be able to provide input? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this has been asked and answered on the talk page of the article, and is not a matter for ArbCom. However, what may be related to the arbitration process is the {{Troubles restriction}} tag on the talk page (which also includes a 1RR restriction). It did some digging and it appears to have been added by Uncle G back in 2012 (diff), along with Celtic F.C. (diff). Neither of these applications ever appear to have been recorded at WP:AELOG, and I can't see any connection from either of these articles to The Troubles. Should these tags be removed? – bradv 20:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The Rangers/Celtic issue is a Catholic/Protestant issue, not an Irish/Troubles issue. The tags should probably be removed. Primefac (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Barkeeps comment here, [8], and his later question, which requires a response, [9] I'm going to need a word-limit extension if I am to reply. I'm currently at just under 500 words I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump 250 more words granted. If you need more beyond that please let us know. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have a non-existent and broken case request. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 22:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If you mean "Rio Grande 223" then the initiator (DTParker1000) cocked up the section heading when making the filing, but AirshipJungleman29 fixed that and the links in T:ACOT now work correctly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@El C and AndyTheGrump: Given that everybody is constrained to edit a section titled "Statement by (username)", which nobody else is allowed to edit, I'm unconvinced that making a fuss about signatures is justified. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I wanna see the day without looking through the history. And now they know, for future. They plural — why do you ping just the one user? Also, who cares? El_C 15:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hasn't this case request been at 6 declines from among 10 active arbs for more than 24 hours? Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a missing entry in the list of declined cases in the first quarter of 2024. DTParker2000 filed a request for arbitration about Rio Grande 223 on 19 March 2024 that was declined on 20 March 2024, but it isn't listed in the list of cases. (So, yes, they are making the same frivolous request again three months later.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that the second Rio Grande 223 is now listed in the list of declined ArbCom cases. The first Rio Grande 223 is still not listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added this to the declined cases list. Thanks for raising it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the {{shortcut|WP:ARC}} template from the page, since this shortcut is already linked from the shortcut template in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header. 88.97.195.160 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 88.97.195.160 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I noted in the Noleander discussion that this edit appears to be non-standard. Is this something that is OK, or should this be reverted by a clerk? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's not OK and have added instructions to the template to make clear it shouldn't be done in the future. There's been some private discussion about what to do in this instance. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If this sort of thing is not OK, and this has been clarified going forward, should I just undo the edit? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The brief discussion arrived at just leaving it there in this instance, mainly given that the notifications were already sent and that one could have reasonably thought that others could add involved editors. SilverLocust 💬 22:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@ArbCom Clerks: Why is this still up after seven arbs declined it, the last 72 hours ago? Has something exciting happened?! ——Serial Number 54129 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is always exciting. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe it should be shortly archived by a trainee clerk. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 23:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/preload-amendment says You can use http://www.wordcounter.net/ to check the length of your statement. Could someone clarify those instructions as to whether it applies to source code or preview text? This affects piped bluelinks. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Text shown on the page. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking a turn - wonder if https://wordcount.toolforge.org/ is stable enough to use instead of sending people to that external site? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably. Clerks also will use User:L235/wordcount.js for quick checking of these things. Primefac (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Primefac: There being 3 different tools is concerning. What happens if one party is accused but claims another tool supports them? One tool should have priority. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose "count the words on the screen" wins...., with all sorts of bickering of what a "word" is- but realistically, extensions are routinely approved if needed... — xaosflux ^Talk 16:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Btw, WP:ARC suggests yet distinct https://www.countofwords.com/ and User:GoldenRing/wordcount.js. GoldenRing's tool shows no buttons after pasting in DevTools, and L235's one only says "1 words" in Vector 2022. Human counting and bickering is even more vague, but at least we agree on displayed text only. Looking at precedent, striken and off-screen/non-shown {{cot}} also seem to be ignored and uncounted.

I suppose ArbCom is !declining to chose a specific tool, and mooting it because extensions. Rambling contributions are less effective anyway. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Word limits are also not intended to be interpreted overly strictly. No-one is going to get sanctioned for a statement that is ~5 words over the limit where the author has clearly tried to be as concise as possible, but one the same length that is very rambly could result in a formal note from the clerks. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That said I've just checked the same text (SMcCandlish's preliminary statements in the Venezuela case, excluding links and signatures) in 15 different word counting tools (not including the .js options above that I don't have installed) and got 6 different word counts: 333 (wordcounttool.com), 337 (wordcounter.ai), 338 (the most common answer, including MS Office 365 on teams, LibreOffice and the linux command line wc tool), 342 (Google Docs and wordcounter.net), 343 (wordcounttools.com) and 361 (toolforge and countofwords.com). A 30-word difference is a lot more than I was expecting to be honest. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

With there being an official ability of AE admins to refer cases to ArbCom in the Contentious Topic procedures, it would be helpful to have a template that meets those needs as the existing two templates are awkward fits. Thanks for considering, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Or just let us post a link to the AE report without a bunch of templates? Please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think ArbCom is going to need more than a link to be useful and someone will need to identify and notify parties. But perhaps ArbCom would be willing to let clerks do that, with only a minimal of paperwork from the AE admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Building on this: I was obviously think of @Red-tailed hawk clearly needing a bunch of time before filing this request when making this suggestion. And while I understand why he's doing it, having the uninvolved administrators at AE lumped in with the people those administrators are referring to ArbCom seems strange and feels like it makes it harder for the committee to sort out what's going on. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to format it logically. Some more guidance on this would be helpful, going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You've formatted this in a good way, Red. Thanks for taking care of it this time. Agreed that a template would be useful, and the fact that you've done this request this time will be useful learning in what such a template should contain or omit. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Might we want to add the word limits for WP:ARCA to the the big red box at the top of the screen? The limit of 1000 words from WP:AC/P#Format of requests for amendment appears to only apply to amendments (clarifications aren't mentioned), so it's a bit hard to tell what exactly they are for that case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Unlike case requests, I don't believe ArbCom has decided to impose a word limit at ARCA, other than for the proposer's rationale for an amendment. SilverLocust 💬 00:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah. That's a bit odd, but I guess it checks out. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: if one of the clerks would like to copy edit it so it begins with a *:, it would be appreciated. In its current form, the list style of the first-level list item changes from * to : and back to *, which causes screen readers to make extra list end/start announcements. Alternative, a pb template can be added to separate the two comments instead, which would further minimize the number of list start/end announcements and be a bit closer to the current visual appearance. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)