Revision as of 04:25, 29 November 2010

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Palestine-Israel articles\|Request for clarification: Palestine-Israel articles]]	none	none	19 November 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci\|Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci]]	none	none	29 November 2010

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Cptnono (talk) at 08:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono

1/rr was just rolled out across the topic. It has already proven to not mean much but the main reason I am bringing this up here is because editors do not know where to take requests for enforcement. There will be violations even though we all wish they didn't come up. Does it come to AE or the edit warring noticeboard?

Statement by George

I think that edit warring noticeboard is more adept at handling simpler, first-time infractions of the 1RR sanction, while more problematic, long term, serial sanction violators should be referred to AE. Just my two cents. ← George^talk 08:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have 3 cents and it says that AE is superior since it is focused on topic areas of heightened conflicts and should receive faster and stronger results :) I can see problems with both since the edit warring noticeboard is more likely to be ignored but AE is more drama. Edit warring board might also have admins fresh to the topic area (which could be a good thing) but they are less informed on problem editors (although AE has not taken care of problem editors). I don't think it matters too much but it needs to be efficient so whatever makes most sense for the guys looking at the issue is a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't have a problem if other editors want to go to AE first, but I think we should be free to go to either (though not both for the same incident, which would be forum shopping). AE is about as focused as a wrecking ball operated by a drunk... it may swing this way today and knock everyone out, or it might miss the building entirely. Keeps life exciting, at least. :) ← George^talk 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not using a wrecking ball today!Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Requests to enforce the 1RR itself can be taken to AN3. If you ask for action to be taken under the discretionary sanctions provision (i.e., beyond a simple 1RR block), take it to AE. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TC. That is one admin. We don't need a dozen or anything but if we have a few say how they prefer it then others can take it from there. It isn't like we need a set rule or anything but being able to say a simple "hey it would be best if you went that direction" might be nice.10:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

If you take a look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142 you will see some cases of Arbcom sanctions being handled at AN3, in a workmanlike fashion. Violations of 1RR are well within the abilities of AN3. Here are three examples:

Some 3RR cases from October 2010 involving Arbcom sanctions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142#User:Sulmues reported by User:Athenean (Result: 2 weeks/1RR 6 months) 16 October, 2010 User was cited for long-term edit warring on articles subject to WP:ARBMAC2. Blocked two weeks, put under 1RR per the discretionary sanctions.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142#User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours ) User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours ) 19 October 2010 Violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBMAC

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142#User:Prunesqualer reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: No violation) 20 October 2010 Claimed violation of a 1RR restriction imposed under WP:ARBPIA. The admin did not judge that it was a violation of 1RR; closed as No Violation. (Eventuallly he got blocked anyway for 24 hours, not sure where it was discussed).

-- EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I think the views above are reasonable; I have no objection to simple xRR enforcement being handled at AN/3RR if the enforcing administrators find that to be a more suitable venue. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 02:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recused on this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comments pretty much have it here - simple revert warring enforcement can be handled at 3RR but anything complex should be handled at AE. Shell ^babelfish 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci

Initiated by Mathsci (talk) at 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Mathsci

At the close of the case WP:ARBR&I, I readily agreed with arbritators on a topic ban by mutual consent, even after an arbitrator had suggested a shorter topic ban, which would have been over by now. I agreed to this because I no longer had any interest in editing content in the area of race and intelligence, broadly construed, and because, as I said during the case, my presence editing articles was wholly dispensable and completely desirable. My compliance and agreement with almost every point made by arbitrators significantly shortened the closing of arbitration. My topic ban was carefully formulated and did not apply to process pages and noticeboards.

During and after the close of arbitration, Captain Occam, joined by his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, have militated to have sanctions imposed on other editors, notably WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs) (and to a lesser extent Muntuwandi (talk · contribs)). Third parties have appeared on wikipedia in the past month or so, since a topic ban was imposed on Ferahgo the Assassin, whose sole purpose so far has been wikihounding and harassing WeijiBaikeBianji. I have communicated off-wiki with arbitrators about some of these issues, in particular Shell Kinney and Newyorkbrad, which are violations of the topic bans of Captain Occam and Ferhago the Assassin. On specific occasions it has been suggested that I contribute to arbitration noticeboards. I have additionally been asked asked whether information I have provided can be passed on to other arbitrators.

I have no views on the editing of WeijiBaikeBianji. I made a brief statement containing only one very general piece of constructive advice on methods of editing and adding sources that would apply to any editor.[1] Since the close of arbitration, Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin's activities in militating have not declined and the reports I recently made to WP:AE reflect this renewed activity. This has resulted in a logged warning for Woodsrock (talk · contribs), for personal attacks, and a block for Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) for tracking his edits. In my perception both incidents formed part of a campaign of harassment and wikihounding of WeijiBaikeBianji. Another example are these kind of edits by a newly arrived editor. [2], [3]

In addition I have identified and reported a series of troubling sockpuppets of Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), some with specifically antisemitic overtones, including Suarneduj (talk · contribs), Juden Raus (talk · contribs), RLShinyblingstone (talk · contribs) and Oo Yun (talk · contribs).

I am requesting that arbitrators please clarify the particular nature of my topic ban by mutual consent and whether it should in future apply to process pages, for which there has been no indication so far. Please could arbitrators also provide guidance for administrators overseeing the arbitration noticeboards as to whether they may change the nature of carefully formulated topic bans of this kind.

Response to Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney: Thank you for these kind comments. Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned on this , I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statements. I am specifically open to the possibility of lifting Mathsci's topic-ban at this time, to avoid disputes about its precise borders, given his statement that in any event he does not intend to return to editing the articles themselves. It may also be that we need to review the behavior of various editors on these articles since the case closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for additional statements here, but I don't believe Mathsci's participation in process areas for this topic has been disruptive. Shell ^babelfish 04:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 I am requesting that arbitrators please clarify the particular nature of my topic ban by mutual consent and  whether it should in future apply to process pages, for which there has been no indication so far. Please could arbitrators also provide guidance for administrators overseeing the arbitration noticeboards as to whether they may change the nature of carefully formulated topic bans of this kind.
+; Response to Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney : Thank you for these kind comments. Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned on this , I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area.
 === Statement by other user ===