Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive (Enforcement 2006-2008)

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

Looks good, but...

I removed "Courtesies, such as 3RR, that many editors use as an entitlement, might not apply." The 3RR is not a courtesy -- it is an electric fence. Otherwise, it looks okay, although to be honest I'm not sure if anything beyond the first couple of sentences in the note to admins is worth keeping. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's verbose. The 3rr thing, I was just trying to get across that convicted revert warriors shouldn't even be given 3rr. Tangent: IMHO, 3RR needs an edit before and a 4th revert to violate, for five edits in order to get blocked - that's too much for anyone. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily an edit before; 3RR violations are sometimes to text inserted by someone else; and often to text inserted some months before, while the other portions of the article are rewritten by someone else. Septentrionalis 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was I reverted?

Can someone explain why my edits were reverted? Were they without merit, or did I post my information in the wrong place? --69.117.7.63 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Right to defend

I'd like to propose to add the following clause to the note to administrators to better protect the right to defend, and to avoid actions being taken based on one-sided view: " Action(s) should not be taken within the 168-hour (7-day) period after the relevant user(s) are notified at his/her/their user talk page(s), unless he/she/they has/have responded to the request(s) here, or has/have continued their disruptive behaviour. The period should be extended accordingly if the user(s) is/are blocked for whatever reason(s) within the period, so that his/her/their right to have sufficient time to defend his/her/their position(s) is guaranteed. ". — Instantnood 21:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not another step of dispute resolution. Like 3RR, AN/I, Vandal, etc, notification and discussion aren't required. It's assumed Administrators who wish to enforce will assume good faith on the person under arbcom sanction. If the person has been blocked, they can still appeal with the unblock template. SchmuckyTheCat 22:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How could you ensure the person who puts up a request is not abusing, by providing one-sided evidence and not giving the full picture? What would you suggest to compensate the time lost as a result of block? — Instantnood 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why administrators have brains. It's about user behavior, not content. An admin can see, by the edit histories of the articles and by the user contribs of the person reported, whether or not the behavior being reported has validity. If that behavior is disruptive (or that behavior is what is sanctioned by ArbCom) then a violation has occured. It doesn't matter if they are "right" in a content dispute!

Don't start revert games here. None of the abuse reporting pages require notification to the user being reported. It may be a courtesy, but it should not be a requirement. SchmuckyTheCat 22:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. An administrator relies partly on what the person reports to determine how to react. The reporters can't always be trusted. There could be people who deliberately attempts to influence administrators in bad faith, and there are more people who simply make mistakes. — Instantnood 22:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrators don't act without investigating a situation. For instance, the SqueakBox complaint against Hagiographer is still under investigation after some time because it's not clear that SqueakBox's identification of Hagiographer as a sock puppet of Zapatancas is correct. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doctoring other users comments

What is the policy towards doctoring the comments of other userrs on this page? eg [1], SqueakBox 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographer shouldn't do that. I'll ask him to stop. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Notification

I'm interested to know why it is not considered necessary to notify the user being reported. — Instantnood 22:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The user being reported is presumed to know that he's under probation or parole. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Help!!!

Please show me how to fix [2]

As you see the text is over lapping the:

Noticeboard Archives:
Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51:
Incident Archives:
Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120:
3RR Archives:
Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22:
Noticeboard - Incidents - 3RR - Checkuser:
Sock puppets - ArbCom enforcement:
Talk - Backlog - All archives:

Box.

I have removed the message box, leaving the underlying comment/code that Werdnabot uses to get settings on a page. This is how Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and a few other places are, so I guess it works. —Centrx→talk • 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone home?

I posted on this noticeboard a while ago but I haven't seen any response. Des anyone monitor this page?

Justforasecond 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people look at it sometimes. Apparently the people who post to the other side of this postcard are desperate for vengence, the administrators who handle the other side of this postcard are busy and rarely look here. I dunno. heh. Justhappenedby. Terryeo 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I look at your post and noted it, but did not deem it important enough to investigate. It is a known problem which we have more or less addressed. Fred Bauder 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please advise about procedure

A user who has been indfinitely banned from editing articles on a particular topic has, for a period of months, demonstrated bad faith and acted disruptively on the article talk pages in the banned subject area. The user has also become active in policy and guideline discussions in a manner that, it appears to me, is an attempt to modify global Wikipedia policy in order to gain advantage in arguments related to the topic from which he was banned as an editor. The user has also stated or implied that the editors who disagree with him (virtually all of the other editors who work in this subject area) are engaged in a malicious, deliberate conspiracy against fair and accurate presentation of information. He makes even larger claims about these editors as a group, implying that they are morally corrupt sociopaths. The behavior I describe above has been consistent and frequent, and it has gone on for months. The user has also recently been found to have violated his editing ban directly, by editing the articles in question under an anonymous IP. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to extend the ban to the article talk pages and the policy/guideline pages. What is the proper place and manner in which to raise this issue? BTfromLA 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That sort of extension would have to be approved by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So what does that mean--would a whole new ArbCom have to be applied for and convened? BTfromLA 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You would make a request in the "Requests for clarification of previous cases" section. If the committee takes notice of it, they may ask for more information, reopen the case, or simply file a motion to modify the previous case. Your request should be relatively brief and to the point, with just a few of the most significant diffs. ( The issue of editing while logged out is being dealt with, so focus on alleged disruptive edits to talk or policy pages) If they want more info they will ask. Thatcher131 17:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. BTfromLA 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Could you provide a link to "Requests for clarification of previous cases"--I can't find the category. Thanks once more. BTfromLA 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just on the main WP:RFAR page, below the currently listed requests for arbitration. Thatcher131 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Virginia route page moves

As a result of consensus in the Poll, we at the WikiProject Virginia Highways (talk) request to begin moving pages to the new naming convention on Friday, September 15th. These moves are in line with what was reached in the poll, and what is agreed on on the talk page. Currently, mass page moves are a blockable offense, but with consensus after the poll, we request that the following users not be blocked for page moves: User:MPD01605, User:NE2, User:No1lakersfan, User:Gooday.1, User:Doctor Whom, and User:Rschen7754. As of now, there are no bots, but should one become available, I will notify. Thank you. --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am Vandal, pl. take action against me.

Some editors editing Hinduism feel that I am Vandal and I should be banned. I solicit pl. do it fast so that they are at peace but kindly check the discussion page to make sure that the case is not of content dispute or sock puppetry.

I shall await your message on my talk pg., if you could pl. do so. Swadhyayee 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is only for enforcement issues relating to past arbitration cases. For new issues you could post to the administrators noticeboard or file a request for comment. Thatcher131 11:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with LoZTP

Now, LoZTP is a video game coming out on GCN and Wii. IMO: Both the GCN and the Wii box (Which are pretty different) in the infobox. Can someone give me an opinion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs)

This is not an arbitration issue. You might try request for third opinion. Thatcher131 03:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)