Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Initiated by Durova^Charge! at 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El_C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Giovanni33
• John Smith's[1][2]
• El_C[3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2
• Third Opinion
• WP:RFC: 3 attempts[4],[5][6]
• Straw poll

In response to WP:ANI#User:Giovanni33:_patience_exhausted.3F I reviewed Giovanni33's block log and confirmed sockpuppetry and implemented an indefinite block. This turned out to be a controversial decision. Although the block withstood a request for review, both the ANI discussion and the CSN discussion failed to reach consensus. I gave Giovanni33 an unblock offer that let him craft lesser remedies and he proposed two that would both have included reciprocal remedies for John Smith's, so I suggested community enforceable mediation but John Smith's rejected that as false parity. It is not easy to craft an effective consensus solution for how to handle any difficult but long-established editor, so I offer this to the Committee. Upon posting I will give both Giovanni33 and John Smith's limited unblocks for the purpose of arbitration. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my recollection I have had no prior interaction with either Giovanni33 or John Smith's. When John Smith's contacted me offline I disclosed the fact immediately and explicitly extended a commensurate offer to Giovanni33. When some editors proposed linking John Smith's conduct to the block on Giovanni33 I replied that tu quoque is not a defense and repeatedly offered to examine evidence regarding John Smith's conduct as a separate matter. Such evidence was not forthcoming as of this arbitration request, but (as seen below) my fairness and impartiality were beginning to come under challenge. No dispute is worth my reputation, certainly not this one. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war has been going on for years. Durova's hastily and without discussion imposed an indefinite block, which effectively sided with one of the parties. From then on, she seemed inclined to give John Smith the upper hand in any settlement, which he promptly took advantage of. Giovanni has been facing concerted prejudice due to unpopular 1st-World politics in combination with a lengthy block log, whose activity, however, is mostly limited to one year ago. I'm at a disadvantage here because forces which favour banning Giovanni are participants in the Committee mailing list, so their view is likely to be better represented. But at least this process is regulated, unlike the anarchy that is CSN. El_C 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passage above retracted with apologies to Dmcdevit. Also, I was not attempting to stain Durova's reputation, that is a gross overreaction, although, yes, I do direct certain criticisms. Her action, by placing an additional censure on Giovanni, seemed to have inspired John Smith to think is can continue to edit war, as he has been for years, over the issue for years to come. So, he essentially said: provide me with a highly advantageous remedy, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure. El_C 04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

• I'm not a clerk, but I'll just use this space to note that I made the (I think) uncontroversial change of altering the title from "Giovanni33" to "Giovanni33-John Smith's," considering the intended scope. Dmcdevit·t 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Ankush135 at 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Clerk Notes below. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

• Ankush135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DaGizza (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ugen64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Doldrums (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hornplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akhilleus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Have intimated the above of the arbitration request through IP postings under the head of 'Ankush 135'. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaGizza&action=history ]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]

However, DaGizza has reverted my queries on his talk page, called me a troll/sock & has dismissed my queries and anguish as personal attacks

Also, inspite of being blocked, my not even surfing wikipedia these days, and this being under a request for arbitration, I have been tagged as a sock again [[13]], [[14]]

Apologies for resorting to this method to get my block lifted as have not been left with any option

I don’t know whether all parties are aware of the request as I have blocked from editing even my talk page. Requesting for arbitration on advise of Krimpet.

Also, won’t be able to advise parties that request has been filed on account of this reason. However, will try that without logging in.

I have not been given a chance to ask of mediation, directly asked to go for arbitration

Am not aware of the intricacies of the process. However, had requested for removal of my block twice, and the requests were rejected.

I was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia by DaGizza on account of being sock of a subcontinental troll. My protest is on following counts 1. Being blocked indefinitely without prior notice 2. Presumption of me being a sock, without verification 3. Abusive language, called a troll 4. Requests for unblock turned down, first time, without getting any reason and second, on account of issues not related to the merit of my blocking Please note that I have issues with the posting on Romila Thapar and I have tried to insert a head regarding controversies effecting her. However, both Hornplease & Doldrums reverted each of my edits, on what I may call, hollow grounds. I then desisted from making further edits but started the discussion on the Romila Thapar talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romila_Thapar

Later, I inserted the NOPV disputed tag on the page. Doldrums reverted the tag 4 – 5 times. My contention was that till we settle the issue whether the article is neutral or not, the tag should remain.

However, when I last re-inserted the tag, I found myself blocked by DaGizza on wild presumptions. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I question his motive and contend that it amounts to an abuse of administrative rights when you pass punitive punishment without evidence.

I have always inserted my signature whenever making any edit. Initially, I used to forget logging in when editing, but even here, I would then replace the ip with my signature.

In non office hours, I access internet using a Data Access Card, a device which gives a different IP each time it connects to the net. But that does not mean I am a sock. I have only one ID on wikipedia.

With due respect, I contend that I am not asking for a favor but only justice to be done. I have acted within the norms of decency and my conscience is clear. Blocking me indefinitely is in bad taste and without reason

Had I been a sock or whatever, I would certainly not have tried to get the same lifted. I humbly request the arbitration committee to pass judgment on the matter. ====

Couldn't follow the board for the last few days as was travelling. I might be violating a lot of Wiki norms by posting a response here but am not aware of most rules, hence if you feel so, please excuse it, if not, anyways...

Am very much amused by the reaction of DaGizza to my petition. He is a person who 1. condemned & punished me on mere suspicion 2. never gave me any warning or chance to explain 3. accused me of being a troll 4. removed my queries from his talk page and even edited my arbitration notice from the page.

The basis of my 'sockness' or whatever have ostensibly been edits which I have performed onRomila Thapar

DaGizza claims that I did not pretend to be hurt or try to defend myself. He does not find anger in my being blocked needlessly but dismisses my words as personal attacks. I never made any personal attacks before but put questions which because they pointed to his unreasonableness, lack of maturity and grace, stung him.

As clarified earlier, my tagging Hornplease/Doldrums was in response to me being tagged as a sock of some Bharatveer. And since it was these two guys who had engaged in a revert war on Romila's page that I thought them culpable and tagged them. Clarifications in that regards are there on my talk page.

As regards edit wars, if a 'respected' editor removes even the 'NOPV' tag inspite of incomplete/unsettled discussion, particularly when the page has already been referred to the Living Person's Biographies page [[15]], then I believe that the counter party has perfect right to re-insert the tag. After all, it does indicate the presence of a dispute, doesn't it?

If hornplease had read the case, I referred this issue to ArbCom only because an administrator asked me to

I have declared before that I use a remote access card to access internet, something which gives me a new IP each time I connect. Perhaps (though I very much doubt now) you realise that I did not even need to get my block lifted to create new ids and edit, simply because I am not constrained by IP blocking. I spent so much time and energy in trying to lift my block for I wanted to be a wikipedian the legitimately accepted way. This was my only account on Wikipedia. Ankush 135 never was a sock of any person but was the wiki identity of its owner's self. I did not resort to taking advantage of flexibility to create new accounts and wreak havoc. My insistence was only that the POV presented on Romila's page is not neutral and the basis on which information relating to controversies effecting her got reverted each time needs to be discussed before the matter is closed [[16]].

Feel free to declare me a sock. People have invaded countries on lesser pretexts :-) You have caught hold and condemned. It is unfortunate that I have had to interact with some people who are shallow, without basic intellect and think of their admin duties as a favour to others [[17]]. As an aside, somebody has tagged me a s a sock of some Kuntan much AFTER I had been blocked indefinitely by DaGizza

Perhaps I deserved this for I tried to uphold what I felt was correct and did not know that Wikipedia is a place ruled by McCarthists'. Anyways, doesn't matter now.

Happy blocking

My reasoning for blocking Ankush can be found in his block log [18]. Examining most of Ankush's contribs (Special:Contributions/Ankush135), he has engaged in revert warring and sock tagging very early in his Wiki-career. His edit-warring is evident in the Romila Thapar history page. In fact, his twenty-somethingth edit was tagging Hornplease and Doldrums as socks of each other.

For all those unware with the Hkelkar 1/2 cases, there are plenty of sockpuppeteers/trolls such as User:Hkelkar, User:Kuntan among others who constantly edit war with each other using their sockpuppets. Most often, checkusers aren't required because many admins are now very familiar with the edit-warring patterns and hence indefinitely block them on sight. From what I saw of Ankush, my gut instinct told me Ankush is one these fellows and so I blocked him.

His reaction to my block confirms my suspicions. I expect a good-faith new user to yes, probably get angry at me but otherwise try to defend their actions and probably act confused yet innocent. However, he has launch of personal attacks and incivil remarks on various users during his unblock attempts, [19], [20], [21], [22]. Other admins have declined his unblock request with what I believe to be satisfactory reasons [23], [24].

Response to Bakaman

Namakab, in many of your reverts you label the anons as "Kuntan." If the user is in fact not Kuntan, but a good-faith user, your level of accusation is almost as bad as mine. The only difference is you don't block them but you still call them troll and bite them in other ways. Further, if the arbitration commitee believed that I misused my admin tools during the Hkelkar 2 case, they would have cautioned me then. The fact was that I only supported someone else's use of admin powers just as ten or so others did. Many of those others weren't admins. If you want to prove that I have abused my admin tools, you have to show it through my logs. If I blocked one of you guys, deleted an article with a reason which you felt was unjustified or protected a contentious article, please notify me and the arbitrators. They can look into the matter. Just saying that I have abused my position as an admin isn't doing anyone good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGizza (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 Sep 2007

I looked at his talk page, found the diff recommending he contact ArbCom. The page was protected one edit before that, which would explain why he didn't post the request on his talk page. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I looked at the IP contribs, the edits were only made to the relevant talk pages and this page. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, quack, quack. There are massive amounts of trolling socks/meatpuppets wandering around our subcontinent/India articles, and this is one of them. Probably Hkelkar. The edit pattern is...distinctive. Moreschi ^Talk 13:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the duck test, reason, and logic are invariably more reliable than checkuser. If someone edits in a manner that strongly suggests disruptive sockpuppetry, it is highly likely that they are a disruptive sock. Moreschi ^Talk 11:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that DaGizza's bumbling of other issues related to blocking led to the Hkelkar 2 case, why should we have confidence that will utilize his powers correctly again? Just as there are a number of trolls operating on the India sphere, there are a number of admins ready to experiment with users in this sphere as well.

Arbcom is being taken for a ride by these admins. There is really no need to bite a newbie in such a manner. If you honestly think he is hkelkar, please checkuser him and then block.

Response to DaGizza

That is exactly the difference. Many users tag people as hkelkar for sport, and attempting to connect people to hkelkar is a mccarthyistic way of attacking people's reputations. The fact is that I can't deny people access to editing the 'pedia while you can, evidences that your fooling around with admin tools is far more grave than tagging obvious SPA troll socks as kuntan.Bakaman 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hornplease

So, every new Hindu user must be Hkelkar, because Hkelkar took a vacation once? Great logic.Bakaman 00:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm listed as involved, as I understand that the central concern is the blocking of the account, which I did not request or conduct, or even, to the best of my recollection, comment on. That being said, I would suppose that ArbCom doesnt need to comment; things like this could be taken to AN/I first as straightforward review of admin action. In this case, it appears that all the administrators who commented were unwilling to unblock; I can't see what ArbCom is supposed to do here. Hornplease 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bakaman

Incidentally, I would like to remind everyone that an account later confirmed as one of HK's socks was initially cleared checkuser because he was away from Houston at the time that an RFCU was filed. Hornplease 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In identifying Hkelkar socks checkuser evidence has once been proven insufficient. That's all.Hornplease 10:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I am listed as involved. My only interaction with this editor prior to his block was to decline an unblock request for lack of an adequate reason to unblock. I have no opinion about the merits of the block, which I have not examined. Sandstein 09:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user has filed this case from an IP after being blocked indefinitely. Normally, such a case would be removed and the user told to contact ArbCom by e-mail, but here the user claims to have been advised to seek arbitration by an administrator. Could an arbitrator advise whether this case should remain here or be removed, and whether the user should be unblocked to allow for the giving of notifications. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see a response from DaGizza here before I accept or decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. See no good reason given to over rule the block and the unblock reviews. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Moved to talk page. Thatcher131 13:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case dealt with Eastern European topics, currently I, and several other contributors, have problems with on of this case involved parties, namely user:Halibutt's disruptive conduct practice. I asked assistance for solving this problem on several places [25][26] and I was informed that the proper place would be WP:RFAR itself. Current problems, involving Halibutt, includes continuing neglect towards WP:POINT, WP:AGF and general harassment of various contributors. For more detail explaining my problem please see my post at Arbitration enforcement. I would like to receive assistance solving this situation, because such disruption of particular contributor done on Wikipedia could be harmful for the future of the project. Thank you.--Lokyz 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case of User:Halibutt is indeed one very important to this ArbCom case. Halibutt was once a very active member of this project, among the Top 200 most active contributors, and an author of several Featured articles as well as many DYKs. However months - if not years - of insults and baiting (with "are you a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?" being my favorite example of comments that are allowed to go unpunished, thus certifying that CIV/NPA are dead policies) from several users with rather strong POV and a feeling of ownership over many areas Halibutt was interested in (ex. history of Poland-Lithuania) eventually resulted in Halibutt drastically limiting his activity in the project. Despite the harassment he faces, Halibutt still occasionally comes back and contributes to an article, or creates new ones - only to receive in return comments like "your metaphors really show your level of culture and bias", "You been whining... So why don't you have the balls to simply leave, as promised so many times before?". Just a few days ago, Halibutt expanded one article, only to be flamed on talk. The comments he recently left on my user page, and to which I assume Lokyz refers above, illustrate the problem. Yes, Halibutt's post is not the most diplomatic, and he makes some generalizations I strongly disagree with. But he also nails the problem: several POV-pushers, Usenet-type flame discussion warriors and pure trolls are driving good content creators away. User:Halibutt is not the only one who has limited his activity, due to harassment from certain editors (many of whom named as parties in my ArbCom); I could name several others who decided that they find no pleasure in contributing to the project in exchange for constant insults and sniping (originating, among others and often enough, from Lokyz, ex. [27], [28], [29]). This is why CIV/AGF/NPA policies were invented in the first place: to prevent fans of sniping and commenting on other editors from driving away those who prefer a more civil and academic discource. Nobody can say that driving content contributors away is good - particulary if the said contributors never violate our policies unless grossly baited. But this is what's happening, right here, right now. Gross incivility is going unpunished, baited users either lose temper and join the trolls and/or leave the project. This is the real problem, threatening the entire project and turning it into an arena where we are seeing the wiki-version of 'survival of the fittest' - only those with most foul tongue and thickest skin survive, the rest gets banned or leaves, disgusted. I can only hope ArbCom will address this issue before it is too late.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He only received those comments after posting a 1000+ word rant calling everyone in a row trolls, ultras, morons, idiots, nationalists, etc etc. on your talk page. That it was not an outburst of frustration is proved by five of his postings of the same content. The mess on Narutowicz page started not after he expanded it, but after he unilaterally moved it without any discussions knowing perfectly well that it will be challenged (we been there so many times before to assume otherwise). While his productive edits are welcome, such distruptive behaviour is certainly not. Renata 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got the order of the events a bit wrong. 1st, Halibutt expands the article. 2nd, he moves it as per his sources. 3rd, move war erupts, with Halibutt getting flamed at talk for daring to move the article he destubbed and expanded. 4th, Halibutts post the "rant" complaining about the editors who flamed him. 5th, one of the editors who flamed him complains here about the rant. As far as I see it, the problem would never appear if certain editors would try to assume good faith and talk to the editor who expaned the article and presumably knows a thing or two about the subject - before they started flaming him and accusing of various things for daring to move the said page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note. As per the obvious problem (above) where it is unclear indeed "who is more wrong" as well as another "Request for clarification" (see #Piotrus below), I would thoroughly welcome ArbCom taking the case back, analyzing the editors' behavior (including mine) and render a meaningful judgment to replace or add to the too vague one rendered and voted earlier. ArbCom took upon itself one a very messy case and in the end produced a non-decision whose consequences are bound to bring up these endless "clarification requests". I was tempted to start such requests on my own several times and decided not to since I did not want to be seen as the one who does not let the sleeping dogs lie, bygones be bygones, etc. The fact is that all dogs are awake and the proof is that these requests continue to pop up. Perhaps it is inevitable that the case needs to be brought to a more meaningful closure. Even if such would keep "an amnesty" intact, clarifying what parties misbehaved, which parties "are reminded" and what the offenses were are especially needed in view of the outright defiance of the involved editors to even admit to any wrongdoing. --Irpen 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often disagree with Irpen. This is not the case here, I completly share his sentiments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish editors or single Polish editor that is the first question. Violation of WP:AGF or violation of Wikipedia rules (like WP:RM) is another. POV bashing or contributions is a third. Generalization or research - that means specific, but by no means selective details is fourth.Knowing the subject or googling on occasion is fifth. And please WP:AGF - I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm not using metaphors like knives - I'm just asking direct questions.--Lokyz 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of Halibutt's post: " Better yet, wiki is like a town where you can visit all sorts of restaurants with different cuisines. Plenty of Polish pierogi bars, pizzerias, stylish French bistros, English fish'n'chips eateries, and so on. However, there's only one Lithuanian restaurant with flies in every dish and a psychopathic chef running with his knife from one bar to the other, just to kill some clients here and there.

Perhaps it's my problem that I like Lithuanian cuisine and would love to visit the restaurant. Yet, apparently I shouldn't. And I shouldn't even get near, as it's dangerous. The only remedies I know are to either kill the crazed chef (but I'd have to do it alone as there's nobody else to see the problem), open up my own Lithuanian restaurant (impossible, as the crazed chef would kill me) - or move to another town." [30] I find this language disturbing. Novickas 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selective quoting is not the best method of citing somebody. And I'd hope that ArbCom does loook one day into the activities of the "crazed chief" and his friends. As amusing as the metaphore is, the problem is quite real.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did recognize that selective quoting is not the best way? Then how about google or google books searches like for example "Lithuanian+nationalist" ? Meanwhile another question remeins open - did someone know the fact, or did he find it on your list and then googled selective? As for evidences - you might wwant to read the Talk:Antanas Baranauskas page - there you'll find plethora of "knowledge" evidences. I did especially like this one "Right... So a guy who wrote some poems in Lithuanian is automatically a Lithuanian, right? Err... wrong, my dear. Similarly, currently the article suggests Baranowski (as he called himself) was born in Lithuania, even though he was born in the Russian empire to a Polish family." Quite an amusing read, a good example how someone tries to expand an article using "knowledge". Most fun part is that this so called "knowledge" denies every fact, that does not suit it's beliefs - even Polish encyclopedias, clearly quoting him as "poeta litewski". If you'd read it as a whole, you'll soon find quite a recognizable behavioral pattern. And i do will try to describe it with metaphors, that's your speciality.--Lokyz 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.

1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?

ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.

I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:

1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 10 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.

Support:

1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)