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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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).