Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

revealing the depths of my ignorance

So, trying to get myself more up to speed in this whole area, and I see in this page little boxes with things like guide.decor in them. Am I supposed to know what those are or that I'm supposed to do something with them? Sorry for being dense. —valereee (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are just page anchors to allow for links to sections, they don't mean anything outside of that. WP:ACDS#guide.decor should link to the "decorum" subsection if I did it right. (And it doesn't need to be said but you're neither dense nor ignorant - I think that's the only place on the project we use little "word.otherword" anchors for subsections rather than the usual WP:XYZ shortcuts.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I made my own template that I use at User:isaacl/Community consensus, but I used full phrases rather than dot-separated keywords. There is of course no reason why anyone but me would know this :-). isaacl (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I specifically created a new template so the anchors could be displayed with the {{section link}} template, thus making it more evident what the boxes were for. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

AC/DS Anchors

Since we're here, just how handy are those anchors? In the revised DS page currently being drafted they've not been included as they always struck me as... a bit much. To the extent they're necessary I would lean towards using {{policy shortcut}}. Any thoughts about this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never used the anchors, but I am perennially irritated that WP:DS spits out deletion sorting and not discretionary sanctions. I don't think I've ever seen "DS" written on-wiki to refer to deletion sorting, it's always DS-meaning-discretionary sanctions. Can you please usurp/retarget? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the anchor links to the typical all-caps redirect links: I like not putting more redirects into the top-level namespace, and like dot-separated labels over all-caps, no space labels. But I would be fine with just using the headings where they are chosen to be adequately concise yet descriptive (or with using short phrases for anchor labels as on my page). isaacl (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to participate in the anchoring discussion, but I'd certainly back PMC on wanting to retarget DS to discretionary sanctions Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Compared to Nosebagbear, I'm not even qualified to exist, but I totally agree that WP:DS must mean disc.sanctions to the vast, vast majority of users who encounter it—and as PMC notes, who then have their time wasted perenially by being sent down a rabbit hole to deletion sorting. DS apply to so many areas of the article space that they're effectively universal; deletion sorting is an arcane locale of minutiae not even regulars at WP:AFD devote themselves to with much frequency. ——Serial 15:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree that deletion sorting has always struck me as less useful than discretionary sanctions for WP:DS but also maybe don't go rushing off to RfD just yet... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to delete anything. (or have a protracted discussion IMO) We have WP:DELSORT .. just edit WP:DS to change the target to here/there. change: "#redirect [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting]] {{R from shortcut}} to #redirect [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]] {{R from shortcut}} .. like this — Ched (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ched: I've reverted your bold change. Longstanding shortcut redirects should never be retargetted without verifying that links in discussions, edit summaries, etc. will not become misleading - and even then they can be controversial so need discussion. You hadn't even changed the header at Wikipedia:Deletion sorting so it's clear you've not put any significant thought into consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Again I will just reiterate that a more productive discussion can probably be had about where the DS redirect should point in a few months. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

whatever Thryduulf, — Ched (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Other options

For those of you who want to be specific in linking to specific text (and who use Google), you may like: this app. It comes in hand for things like this — Ched (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Action against an administrator - RegentsPark

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.

---

Hello,

I would like to bring this to your kind notice that one user/administrator called RegentsPark has been disruptively removing my content for the last few months. I am a new editor and began editing articles on Wikipedia after going through the guidelines, rules and policies. Apparently, I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia, its administrators and every other contributor who is giving his valuable time and knowledge in helping billions of its readers around the world.

However, I have come across an administrator named RegentsPark, when I added reliable content on a Wikipedia page called Kingdom of Jeypore. It’s really heartbreaking for an editor like me who follows the policies but is still harassed and often mocked by RegentsPark. It’s also suspicious to see how this administrator has been lurking in the page for the past one year (check history of the page).

I added doe content with reliable references as per Wikipedia guidelines but still he removes them without giving proper explanation and when I questioned him on his talk page, he did not even bother to reply. I understand he has some 10,000 edits and has been a contributor on Wikipedia for more than a decade but still it’s not appropriate how he treats new users like me. I can assure you that I always add content supported with relevant sources. Still I am facing this day to day problem and it’s really surprising how he only removes my work but the work of others. For example, one administrator named Jethwarp edited the Kingdom of Jeypore page by changing the status of the kingdom to a princely state (originally it was a zamindari) which is false but RegentsPark completely ignored his edit even though it’s wrong but when I add something he removes it by just saying it’s not reliable. He is using Wikipedia as his personal platform and misusing his administrator rank.

If you investigate further you will definitely know his intentions. Please accept this case and take appropriate action against him. I am sure you will treat all users equally regardless of their position. Kind Regards. RudolphHitz (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@RudolphHitz:, RegentsPark has replied to you, at Talk:Kingdom of Jeypore#Why is Indian Rajput not reliable ?. If that answer is not satisfactory and you would like additional input about the reliability of indianrajputs.com, consider starting a discussion at WP:RSN. – bradv🍁 21:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've given RudolphHitz some additional input,[1] but that didn't seem to make them happy. Bishonen | tålk 21:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC).

It’s not just about Indian Rajputs. It seems like you cancelled my entire complain by pointing the Indian Rajput website query. I understand that is not reliable, okay, but what about my other edits that have been disruptively removed ? If you go through the history, on 31st May 2021, I added information supported by a very reliable source from the government website. Within a few minutes my entire work was removed by RegentsPark with a very vague explanation. Can you please check for once ? That’s what I appeal. Please don’t stick to one Indian Rajput point and cancel my appeal.

I understand if my work is unsourced or supported by an irrelevant source then it must be removed. But my edit on 31st May was up to date with Wikipedia policies & guidelines and if somebody thinks he can remove that as per his/her personal choice then I will continue appealing until my appeal is taken seriously.

It requires a lot of research, time & hard work in gathering information and then adding it. I don’t deserve this harassment. RudolphHitz (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@RudolphHitz: This is a collaborative encyclopedia – plenty of edits get reverted, and that's just part of the editing process. What you should do when you get reverted is discuss your ideas with the other people on the talk page of the article and try to reach a consensus. And remember to discuss content, not contributors. – bradv🍁 01:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• • @RudolphHitz:User:Jethwarp is an experienced editor with about 30,000 edits but not an Administrator. Regents Park has 36,000 edits, I don't know where you get 10,000. But this is really a content dispute and in any case the Arbitration Committee only handles situations where every other avenue has failed. (I'm an ex-Arbitrator and BradV above a current one - take his advice. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• • As far as my edit to correct it as princely state there are two sources are cited below one of which already included in page mentions that Jeypore as princely state.

1. [2] mentinos

It was during the rule of Vikram Deo II that the capital of kingdom was finally transferred to Jeypore, the Princely State under the Maharaja Vikram Dev of Jeypore. Maharaja of Jeypore played a crucial role along with Maharaja Krushna Chandra Gajapati of paralakhemundi in the freedom struggle as well as in the process of unification of Odisha (see ref 6 )

2.[3] the accesions list book mentions it as princely state.

certainly there were no independent kingdoms in British India, either it was British territory or Princely States under suzerainty of British. Title of page in fact should be Jeypore Princely State

Thanks

Jethwarp (talk)

@bradv: Can you please explain me one thing - why were my edits entirely reverted in just three minutes. How can RegentsPark read my entire work along with the sources in just three minutes and cancel my entire work (check edits on 31 May). It’s quite clear that he didn’t even bother to read my sources. Moreover, if you look at his review after the edit he did not give a helpful explanation on why did he remove the entire work. Later, I did reach out to him and asked him the reason behind the reversion and he simply said add it to the talk page and discuss. A better review would have been helpful, but no, 36,000 edits and he can still not write an appropriate review. This proves that he only targets my work and removes it. Look at the history and you will found out.

I have edited many pages where I got in touch with administrators but none of them acted in this way. If I made a mistake then they would simply correct it and explain it to me and that’s how I got to learn so much about Wikipedia. However, RegentsPark’s attitude is questionable because he is really protective about that specific page which raises questions. If you look at the history of the page then you will found out about what I am trying to convey to you.

I understand he is an old contributor and probably your crony, so if you want to take his side then please do without wasting my time. I will contact some other experts in Wikipedia regarding this issue. Thanks RudolphHitz (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've actually had it with these attacks and assumptions of bad faith from RudolphHitz. Not content with groundlessly attacking RegentsPark here and at the Teahouse[4] (in both places being urged to discuss edits, not contributors), he now tells the arb who is nice enough to respond to him here that RegentsPark is "probably your crony" and therefore that arb is "tak[ing] his side". I have blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 09:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC).

Just as I was expecting, he was heading into it sooner or later , with his continuous personal attacks. I hope reads WP:CIVIL , WP:NPA & WP:AGF

Jethwarp (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I've commented further at User talk:RudolphHitz#Reading material. I don't see anything that requires arbitration, so the user talk page is probably a better forum anyway. – bradv🍁 15:24, 13 June 2021 (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.

Cyclical unblock requests (asking other parent?)

We at UTRS were mulling an almost acceptable request. It then came to my attention that ArbCom had declined two weeks ago and had told them to come back in a year. Is there some way to indicate such declines so we don't inadvertently reverse an ArbCom decision we did not know about? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This entirely depends on why they were blocked. Some common scenarios, together with my understanding of how they ought to be handled:

• Regular admin block — appeal on talk page
• Regular admin block with talk page revoked — use UTRS to restore talk page access, then appeal on talk page
• Checkuser/oversight block — appeal either on talk page or to ArbCom (use UTRS only to restore talk page access)
• Checkuser block with three strikes ban — appeal either on talk page or to ArbCom, and then copy to AN for community approval
• Community ban — appeal on talk page, and then copy to AN for community approval before unblocking
• Arbitration enforcement block — appeal to blocking administrator, to AE / AN / ARCA, or directly to ArbCom
• ArbCom block — appeal only to ArbCom
• Global lock — after dealing with any of the above, refer them to the stewards

There are several scenarios in which it's possible to "ask the other parent", which I don't think is a problem that affects the quality of our decisions, but it can occasionally lead to some redundant efforts. If the primary (or only) job of UTRS appeals is to decide whether to restore talk page access, that would help with the duplication of effort.

When ArbCom declines an appeal, they are not saying the person can never return, just that ArbCom isn't willing to unblock them. If ArbCom has private evidence sufficient to mandate that no one should unblock them, then their block should be converted to an {{ArbComBlock}}. Otherwise, they should be free to pursue whatever other avenues are available to them. – bradv🍁 19:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts, tangentially related to the above:

1. If someone is caught socking three or more times using checkuser evidence, their appeal should be granted by both ArbCom and the community. AN on its own cannot unblock them, it can only lift the community three strikes ban. The private checkuser evidence still needs to be reviewed before they can be unblocked. (According to policy, ArbCom does have the right to unilaterally lift any ban anywhere on the English Wikipedia, but in practice this is rarely done.)
2. If, combined with the above, there is also a global lock, then they also need their account unlocked by the stewards. If there is a clear desire on this project to let a person edit, they will usually give their consent, but if there is extensive crosswiki abuse they will take that into account. Nevertheless, an unlock by the stewards does overrule any local block or ban – the above steps still need to be followed as well.
3. There is one category of blocks that is not listed above: regular admin blocks based on private evidence. Technically, these blocks violate the blocking policy, but in practice blocks tagged as "appealable only to ArbCom" are allowed, provided the evidence is also sent to ArbCom (including via the paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org queue). All blocks based upon private evidence are appealable only to ArbCom.
4. This is all very complicated and we should probably have a flowchart. – bradv🍁 22:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)