Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike V • Talk 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Dolovis (August 2015)

Original discussion

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 Dolovis at 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

“Unblocked” notice on my talk page

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. [1] additional condition: "... not to edit any article edited by user:Djsasso within the previous 30 days."

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

• Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Djsasso (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [2]

Information about amendment request

• [3] additional condition: "... not to edit any article edited by user:Djsasso within the previous 30 days."

• Removal of additional condition

Statement by Dolovis

I have not been given any explanation as to why the Arb Board has forced me to accept an interaction restriction with User/Admin:DJSasso. I am aware of no complaint against me asking for or requiring such a restriction. As such, I request that such restriction be removed.

Statement by Djsasso

Not really sure I have much to say here other than Dolovis's past blocks for sock puppeting were all caused by him targeting me (and others) for harassment. Using sock puppets for good hand bad hand while targeting my edits and articles I either created or heavily edited. He has a pretty well documented history of activity which is clearly geared at disrupting me and my editing. Seems like a pretty reasonable restriction for removing the most recent block. To be honest with his history I am surprised he was unblocked in the first place, even with this restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

I would be rather curious to know how this came about as well, actually. I simply assumed that this was generated by BASC of its own accord given DJSasso was a target of Dolovis' latest run of sockpuppetry. But IIRC, Ravenswing was also targeted by Dolovis' latest socks, so I never understood why one but not both.

Also a topic of curiosity is why Dolovis wants the restriction lifted. This seems to be a "just because" request. And for an editor who has been the subject of at least three edit restrictions - and so far as I know, they are all still active - I would suggest there needs to be a much better reason given before any of them are given consideration for lifting. Resolute 03:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

IMHO, the restriction should be lifted & Dolovis given a chance to demonstrate that it's no longer required. There's a fine line between Preventative & Punitive, where restrictions are involved. GoodDay (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing

I was unsettled when Dolovis was unblocked -- I feel strongly that he's a disruptive influence -- and unsurprised when he promptly resumed some of the same disruptive practices which contributed to many a past dispute. However, this is not a proper venue to discuss the propriety of his being unblocked. I'm likewise unsurprised here: this is not the first time that Dolovis has agreed to some stipulation or to obey some rule so as to quiet a dispute, only to claim a lack of understanding down the road, when he didn't simply ignore (or deny making) any such agreement in the first place.

To address Resolute's query about why I wasn't included in the restriction, I wouldn't think it was necessary. DJSasso and I edit many of the same articles, and in any event, Dolovis' targeting of DJSasso was far more comprehensive than his targeting of me, which mostly revolved around creating socks to file AfDs on articles I created.

As far as this restriction goes, it is high time Dolovis was held to his word. No one "forced" him to agree to anything, and if he felt such stipulations to be injurious to his dignity, he could have always walked away ... and can do so now, as Salvio suggests. I want a far better reason from Dolovis for reneging on his word than that he fails to understand something about which he had the opportunity to ask in the first place. Ravenswing 15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

• As an outsider who spent a little while looking at this, it was apparent that, as Salvio said, such an agreement had been reached (or at least that the unblocking admin believed it had). What was not apparent was the reason. DJSasso gives their view as to why this would be. Presumably this matter was covered in previous on-wiki dispute resolution, including that which lead to the block of Dolovis. Can the committee then confirm that this is the case and provide a link to such documentation.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Dolovis: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Dolovis: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Your unblock was conditional on you accepting this restriction and, indeed, you accepted it; and, for my money, the restriction should not be lifted, for the moment. If this is causing you undue hardship, you may withdraw your consent to it, on the understanding that your block will be immediately reinstated, though. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• This restriction was placed because the consensus of those Arbitrators commenting on your BASC appeal felt it was necessary to prevent the disruption which resulted in you getting blocked in the first place. This appeal, and the comments by others on it, make me believe that this was the correct decision. If after 12 months without breaching your unblock conditions you can demonstrate it is no longer required, then I would consider lifting it at that point. Alternatively, per Salvio, you may withdraw your consent at any time on the understanding that your block will be immediately reinstated. You may appeal that block in a few months, but do note that this condition would almost certainly also be a requirement for any subsequent unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• As Thryduulf stated, this requirement is a condition of being unblocked. Dolovis, if you've found you no longer can live with it, the option is then to reinstate the block. You voluntarily agreed to these terms and no reason is provided here for why they should be changed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• I was quite against this unblock, so not surprisingly, I have absolutely no intention of changing the restriction. Courcelles (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues. I'm not happy about agreeing to an unblock and shortly after trying to get the restriction lifted, and strongly suggest that you avoid any appearance of getting anywhere near violating it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, per Seraphimblade. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the others. Removing the restriction is to likely to cause trouble. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 28 August 2015 (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.

DS number not a good idea

The numbers on the DS page (e.g. 7.4) are not a good idea, because:

1. Makes the page look too much like code of statutes, and WP:NOTSTATUTE, of course.
2. If you provide anchors, someone might wiklink to them. And then someday some committee might revise the procedures, and then "7.4" might not be the fourth section, so then you have hyperlinks pointing to the wrong section, or sections numbered like 7.2, 7.3 7.31, 7.4, or 7.2, 7.4 ... I'm actually old enough to have lived through the horror of BASIC line numbers -- that's so 70's. Anyway, this is supposed to a word focused encyclopedia, right? NE Ent 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur. We already run into this problem at WP:CSD and some other pages that have unwisely used numbered list, with "dead" numbers being retained, and criteria out of numerical order, to avoid causing confusion resulting from links, and naming of numbered criteria, in old posts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If anchors are to be provided, I'd suggest using descriptive, abbreviated, tags rather than numbers. For instance, the current 7.4 might be labeled "sanction.log" or "sanction.notice". T. Canens (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this sounds reasonable. In the wake of the Arbitration Enforcement case, there will already be changes there, so you might want to bring this to their attention. NE Ent, on the other hand, gets aquatic creatures thrown at him for bringing up the godawful mess of GOTOs that I would rather not remember. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom positions 2016

Here is as good a place as any to give advance notice of early retirement from the Arbitration Committee at the end of this year. It's been an entirely worthwhile experience, but it takes too much time away from what I enjoy a lot more, which is the writing of obscure articles on eighteenth century shipping and colonial figures. I have Wikipedia hours for either Arbcom or articles - after a year doing Arbcom I'd like to get back to the topics I left behind.

Am flagging this early to encourage anyone thinking of running in the upcoming elections, on the basis that there will now be an extra spot available. Some advice to anyone contemplating a run - the volume of work is high, most issues require more detailed analysis than time permits, and the outcomes aren't always cheerfully received. Further, consensus decision-making is essential but understandably causes delays and compromise. More positively, Arbcom offers an excellent opportunity to address some major issues facing Wikipedia. If you like dispute resolution, think there's work to do to improve the editing environment, and have plenty of time on your hands, then you should nominate for election and see how you go.

I'll be staying on the Committee until the end of the year and have plenty more to do in that time. But in the spirit of this message, thanks to all the case participants (and members of the Committee) for what has been an interesting experience since January 1. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)