Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Statement by Tanbircdq

Is that list of off-wiki speculation and personal attacks appropriate? That kind of thing is one reason I suggested any case should be private. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No doubt posted in good faith, but I've removed it. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

For the clerks: Word count?

Hello clerks, this is something I really ought to know, but I can't find anywhere that states a limit on statement lengths at ARCA. If there is such, I'd like to request an extension; responding to a group appeal by up to ten editors necessarily requires a significant amount of rebuttal.

Also, I requested it in my initial statement but I don't think anyone has responded; I think since all the editors who were banned have been notified, it is only reasonable that the admins commenting at AE (who unanimously agreed with the ban) also be notified. I think it would be controversial for me to do it, so I'd be grateful if one of you could. GoldenRing (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering about word count myself. Coretheapple (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is presently no limit on the length of submissions at ARCA, other than a rarely-enforced Committee procedure imposing a 1000-word limit on the filer of an amendment request (does not apply to non-filers or to clarification requests). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Two questions re Galloway case

1. Is it OK for an editor to respond within another editor's section? Please go to my section to see what I'm referring to. If not, the clerks should remove or move the response in my section. (editor is removing their comment)

2. What can be said about off-wiki postings and articles that are the heart of the Galloway case? Can they be linked? I don't see an outing issue but perhaps there is one.

---Coretheapple (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(observation by a former arbitrator) If there is a confirmed, public link between Wikipedia editor A and social-media-platform user B then there is no outing issue with linking to relevant* off-wiki postings by user B. If there isn't, then outing is a possibility. If user B puclicly claims to be editor A but editor A hasn't confirmed or denied this, then statements like "User B on Twitter, who claims to be editor A here, says blah." are fine. It might be best to remove or rephrase it if editor A subsequently denies being User B though. If user B claims to be editor A, it is not outing to ask editor A if they wish to confirm or deny it (but they have the option to do neither, and this should be respected if they choose it). (*linking to irrelevant postings would very unlikely be outing either, but could be harassment) Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

I am writing regarding this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_(poet)

The most important biographical detail, that Mr. Shankar started the world's oldest electronic journal of the arts, is continuously being changed by an editor ScrapIronIV who knows the subject and is interposing biased subject matter, including false information like the suggestion that Mr. Shankar stole school funds. This has already been addressed and changed yet ScrapIronIV continues to try to curate this page based on biased and inaccurate information. We suggest that he NOT be allowed to access this page any longer. 2601:18D:880:94EF:B54C:3BA6:D24B:42FB (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for clerking

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.

---

Corect me if I’m wrong, but normally pretty much everywhere on Wikipedia, if you wish to retract a statement that has been repeatedly replied to you strike it out as opposed to just re-writing it the next day. I would therefore ask that a clerk deal with this. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they dealt with it themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I've never participated in Arbcom before, and I know there are some special rules involving statements as replies, word counts, etc. My intention was not to hide or bury the comment, which of course is in the history. I refactored my statement several times over the course of the case, and not because I want to obfuscate or muddy the waters. Andrevan@ 20:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Never said that’s what you did, but one doesn’t have to be familiar with arbcom to know that the way you did that is not the way it is generally done anywhere on Wikipedia. Frankly, this is reflective of what the whole case is about, you don’t seem to actually know a lot of really basic stuff you should have picked up on like a decade ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia part-time, for fun, when life and time permit, nowhere near as much as you do, probably, though I don't really know. When I became an admin nobody expected a huge activity level or 50,000+ edits. Sure, I'm not exactly the same person I was when I became an admin, but that was 15 years ago. I know a lot about some things, and not as much about other things. Maybe I knew some things, but forgot them at other times. I believe most of the time, the little things I do as an admin here and there are supported by the community, make sense, are logical, and follow the 5 pillars and the crux of major policies and core concepts. More importantly they are good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, or to help people working on it. The exception being the week-long span of editing on a specific topic area where I lost my mind -- but I did not use admin tools.

Every once in a while, I get taken to task for having different interpretations of what the right thing is to do. Since my peak activity period for editing was in the past, I sometimes approach things in a way that seems different to current trends. However, I always discuss the issue extensively, because I believe good discussion and transparency are important. Because my tone is very frank, and I respond quickly, I sometimes seem combative or argumentative, but I don't mean to be offensive. As far as policy chops, I try to brush up on things if they come up. I don't believe my admin decisions have done any negative damage to the encyclopedia.

Yeah, I got "grandfathered" in to an adminship that is much harder to get now, but I also have been a careful custodian of that responsibility. I understand that my week of involved editing which led to the topic ban is a black mark on that reputation. You have to understand that when I say "temporary insanity," I really wasn't thinking about what I was writing. It was obviously bad to write. But it never occurred to me to use admin tools inappropriately. Andrevan@ 00:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: You need to consider that while you state you will never use admin tools inappropriately (and I believe you are saying that with the best intentions), some editors are nervous about exactly what you consider as inappropriate. My go-to example is a legacy admin who managed to block two longstanding editors with clean block records for edit warring with a sock puppet, reverted to his preferred version of an article, and template-protected the article. He believed he was acting appropriately until rather forcefully disabused of that notion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair example Neil, but have I ever done that or anything close to it? Andrevan@ 00:56, 8 June 2018 (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.

Point of order

Several arbitrators have accepted a case which, if I understand it correctly, is a somewhat different case from the one being made, and perhaps has different parties. This is a point of order, I'm not looking to argue the substance of either case here, but I just don't understand how things work. Do I have 2 different statements or should I try to address the other statements as part of my statement? Should I just wait for a clerk or arbs to rearrange the case? If the case is declined on one grounds does that affect the other grounds? I know it's not a legal process but a dispute resolution process. I'm a little confused about what the dispute is, and with whom. Andrevan@ 23:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"I just don't understand how things work" And this is the crux of the matter... --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The guide to arbitration seems to be describing an older iteration of the process. Andrevan@ 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, this process is admittedly not easy to navigate and how to proceed at this particular point in it is not entirely clear, what with the word limit -vs- replying to all the subsequent statements. I can’t say this is altogether clear to me either.

As to the actual question being asked here, I think the crux here is that with the additional statements and evidence presented by myself and others that the case being presented and the one being accepted are more or less in alignment now.

What would really be helpful would be if some more arbs would come by both pending requests and vote to either accept or decline them, the other open request is going on two weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: We only have eight active arbs at the moment; many have been dealing with personal matters. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@L235: My bad, I should’ve looked before commenting. So, with one recusal and five accepts, that makes this case basically accepted per the net four rule, and the other one as well, right? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: No prob – yep, both cases are set to open as soon as we work out some logistical matters. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, nobody understands how arbitration works :) The word limits are IMO more trouble than they're worth, but whenever I say something like that, it never takes long before someone comes along and posts 5000 words somewhere and makes me regret opening my big mouth. For whatever reason, we seem to have gotten slower over the last couple of years at moving requests that are accepted or likely to be, into actual cases. The result is a kind of ambiguous period where there's only the request page and no real talk page specific to an individual request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

RFAR not doing what is advertised

I've gotten the feeling that Arbcom is not voting on case requests as the guide to arbitration says they do for some time now. To quote from the guide, "In a request for Arbitration, a User tries to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention as well as the steps already attempted to resolve it." However it's seems obvious that Arbcom goes beyond looking at these two things even during the request. Instead, Arbcom demands evidence that a user has done something wrong. The latest example: WTT votes to accept a case because the subject (Andrevan) "doesn't seem to have learned from the experience", a clear sign that he's not thinking in terms of "is there a dispute" and "has other dispute resolution been attempted".

What's especially troubling about this is that in the previous election, every single one of the elected arbitrators said the existence of a case doesn't indicate that the committee will impose sanctions. However if Arbcom is also looking for evidence of wrongdoing, and decline any case without such evidence, then of course the existence of a case means the committee will impose sanctions! The committee not imposing sanctions indicates there was no wrongdoing, and the case itself wouldn't exist without wrongdoing.

I'm not saying that this particular case should not be accepted. I am saying that RFAR is not doing what is advertised right now, and furthermore, what it's doing is fundamentally inconsistent with the statements of all elected arbitrators. Arbcom should either think in terms of the two stated requirements and accept more cases, or Arbcom should add a third requirement (some evidence of wrongdoing must be provided), and accept that the existence of a case request will almost surely lead to sanctions. Banedon (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Banedon, in regards to your general point, I think it is fair. May I ask if you are suggesting all elected arbitrators are being inconsistent with the statement "existence of a case request doesn't indicate that the committee will impose sanctions", or just pointing out a potentially growing trend? In either case, thank you for the constructive criticism. Alex Shih (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih yes, I think Arbcom is being inconsistent. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do this, but rather that the process isn't what it says it's like right now. Also, I amended a typo, it should be existence of a "case" not "case request". Banedon (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Banedon. With respect to the specific example, on the Andrevan case - I believe that the entire process of an ArbCom case about an individual is unpleasant for the individual - and if possible should be avoided. Unfortunately, when it comes to the administrator user-right (and other advanced user-rights), ArbCom is the only place where the right can be removed, meaning that cases are perhaps more common than others. One specific thing that was raised as part of the case by Beeblebrox was a pattern of not accepting that he might be wrong, and only capitulating to the community when he feels that he's got no other option. Andrevan's actions during the case request have borne out this point of view. As such, it is reasonable to accept that other forms of dispute resolution will not work and so a case should be accepted.
As for prejudging cases, I am still of the opinion that a case request being opened does not imply that a sanction need be applied. I don't believe we need evidence to start a case - but I do think that we need some explanation as to why it needs to be ArbCom that handles whatever the dispute is. I hope that helps to explain things from my point of view. Worm^TT(talk) 13:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a dispute, or even evidence for or against "being wrong," on the WP:BN page. was I wrong there? Did I not admit it? Is that an ongoing dispute? Can you point me to some more policy guidance about this "being wrong" stuff? Contrary to your point, I usually learn something new and try to always adapt. It would hard not to learn a thing or two that's new in over a decade of editing. Anyway, I agree that the guide for arbitration doesn't seem to be describing the current process, or helping me navigate it.Andrevan@ 13:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think part of the reason a case is unpleasant for the individual is that they historically result in sanctions. If Arbcom took cases that led to "User [X] has not broken any rules and in fact should be commended for acting calmly under stress", then a case would be much less unpleasant. Also, since Arbcom is the only venue where an admin can be forcibly desysoped, that should imply that any case alleging administrator misconduct at desysop level was an automatic accept once it is established that a dispute exists. However in your first response to this case request, you wrote "When evaluating a case request, I look for certain things - a pattern of mild abuse of the tools, egregious and clear cut misuse of the tools, evidence that the user's judgement is impaired or that they have lost the trust of the community." [1] (emphasis mine). Is that not evidence to you? Further, if you're looking for that, you are clearly also going to vote for sanctions if the case is accepted. I just don't see how this is consistent at all. Banedon (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I can absolutely see where you are coming from, and I do apologise for not being clearer - I'm not looking for evidence of those things, but rather reasonable likelihood of those things. For example, it's quite easy for someone to shout "admin abuse" when they are blocked - which would fit under egregious and clear cut misuse of the tools - but I wouldn't necessarily accept a case, even if it fits the "there is a dispute" and "other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted" boxes. As NYB says, there is a balancing act here. At any rate, I'll keep your comments in mind for future case requests. Worm^TT(talk) 14:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think Banedon makes a valid point and was myself a bit taken aback by what has transpired here. I may be a little rusty on these proceedings having not followed them closely in recent times, but I was under the impression that the purpose of a case request was to convince the committee that a problem exists, and that the community cannot deal with it appropriately, with all available evidence and expanded reasoning coming during the evidence phase if and when a case is opened. The issue here is whether a particular user should retain their advanced permissions, and arbcom is literally the only venue for such a matter, so it manifestly did have to come here, and I think it was pretty clearly established from the getgo that there was a real issue. I was not asking the committee to decide then and there whether Andrevan should retain their permissions but rather asking them to accept the case so that ths issue can be resolved in whatever matter the committee deems fit. It seems in any event that the case is going forward but these are still issues that I think should be discussed, although I realize all to well that arb time is in short supply, espescially when they are apparently critically short-handed. Maybe ther’ll be a lull later this summer where a broader discussion of these issues will be more feasible. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two important goals at play here. One is that we don't want to prejudge any case. The other is that we don't want to put everyone through the time and effort of the whole case process unless there's a real need for a case. Reconciling these two goals at the request stage is not always the easiest part of this role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, what NYB said is exactly it. As above, I have the subjective impression that we've been getting slower at transitioning viable cases from request to open case, which may make the experience of the request phase a little harder to navigate. I don't really understand this "sanctions" business - if a case near-inevitably brought sanctions, that would mean that we investigated thoroughly before... opening the investigation. And/or that we never made any mistakes in judging from a request whether sanctions would be needed. I think I make an about-average number of mistakes, and just from the number I've made in the last 24 hours I feel confident in saying a mistake-free arbcom proceeding is not going to happen. (Anyway, carry on, I'll just be over here cleaning up all the stuff I accidentally left sitting on the desk for the cat to knock over...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for clerking Can you please copy it to the Case page .Thank you

User:L235 ,@ArbCom Clerks: Misuse of Tools violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT as a bureaucrat . User:Andrevan has clearly stated in his RFB He had stated I will never let a personal opinion influence an RfA closing if made a bureaucrat, and I will not register a support or oppose opinion AND close the same RfA as per his answer in his RFB.But he closes at 74% even though he had voted which is reverted after a community outcry. There is motion against him But are told to go to Arbcom if they wish to desysop him User:Andrevan has not closed any RFA since 2014 this is the only RFA he has closed and since 2013 he has closed only 1 other RFA and closed this RFA due to a dispute with User:TParis

User:Andrevan has a prior dispute with User:TParis the main opposer in the said RFA with 20 oppose votes per him,which he himself mentions AND OTHER STUFF FROM TP Lost Community confidence Conduct unbecoming an admin It has come to the right venue Problematic behavior from an Administrator and it was closed as If an editor believes that Andrevan should be desysopped, ArbCom is the proper venue. Violated WP:OUTING ,WP:BATTLEGROUND and differences were redacted User:Melanie * ***Thanks for stepping in, Neil. I’m shocked to see someone like Andrevan pursuing the outing of an editor. His battlefield, us-vs.-them mentality is bad enough, but deliberate outing is an absolute no-no that usually leads to blocks or worse - as he surely knows given his length of service and his multiple positions of trust. Adding “I’m not sure if it’s really him” makes it even worse IMO. See redacted differences Personal attacks Called other editors Russian paid agents in content dispute without evidence183.82.17.103 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking that this be copied to the evidence page? The main case page is closed to further comment. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay Please copy it to the evidence page then.Thank you.183.82.17.103 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)