Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAr)
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: ARBPIA3

Initiated by Zero0000 at 06:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Zero0000

The motion passed on Dec 26, 2016 begins, with my sentence numbering added:

"(a) Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. (b) In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. (c) Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit."

Since the act of restoring a reverted edit will most commonly be a revert itself, it is unclear whether sentence (c) applies to it. The relevant (very common) scenario is like this:

(1) someone makes an edit
(2) a non-30/500 editor reverts it
(3) someone undoes action (2) without talk-page discussion.

I'm sure the community would consider action (3) to be law-abiding, but a literal reading of the motion does not support that assumption. The problem is that sentence (c) refers only to the revert limit and not to the requirement to get consensus. I suggest that sentence (c) be replaced by something like "Edits made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit and the requirement to obtain consensus."

Note that if sentence (c) is read as not applying to the need for consensus, then a non-30/500 editor can cause major disruption to article development by reverting legitimate editors, which is contrary to the purpose behind the introduction of the 30/500 restriction. Thanks. Zerotalk 06:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Added: I agree that "exempt from the provisions of this motion" would fix the problem. Zerotalk 07:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

It's very clear the Committee intended for this whole motion not to apply to reverts related to the General Prohibition. All we need here is to amend the very end of that motion from "exempt from the revert limit" to "exempt from the provisions of this motion". That clears up the ambiguity. ~ Rob13Talk 06:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with Newyorkbrad, but let's fix the easy issue before dealing with the more complicated issue. ~ Rob13Talk 06:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Euryalus: Removing the sentence would definitely imply a warning is necessary, at least in my opinion. Perhaps replace the final sentence with "Administrators are encouraged, but not required, to give adequate warning to an editor before enforcing the remedy." ~ Rob13Talk 14:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmborugh

I can't believe we are applying 30/500 to the whole subject of P/I (even though I believe I predicted wide application). The community was (rightly) very leery of permitting protection when it was introduced for pages with incessant vandalism. We now have four types of protection, and a similar number of move protections, plus cascading protection (and edit filters).

To add to this a "general prohibition" which is effectively another trap for the unwary seems a bad idea. May I suggest that while considering the specific point raised above it is worth considering if this can be simplified.

The section:

"but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."

could be replaced by

"but where that is not feasible, other measures may be used in the normal way to cope with disruption."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

Yes that's exactly my first point. The ECP was introduced as a one-off in response to GG (and was probably a bad idea then), and is now widespread and part of MediaWiki software.
Effectively it's another barrier to editing. Where ECP is applied to a page it is at least fair, in that it prevents editing neutrally.
The GP, enacted as a community enforced measure can (nay, must) result in uneven implementation, and wasted effort by good faith IP editors.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

ARBPIA3: Clerk notes

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

ARBPIA3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Agree with BU Rob13, this seems resolvable with amendment of the final clause to read "exempt from the provisions of this motion." Other views welcome, but this seems a legitimate issue with a fairly simple fix. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep, agreed. Finally, an easy PIA ARCA! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Rich Farmbrough: I'm starting to think we need better documentation of the history of 30/500, because this keeps coming up in PIA-related ARCAs. The "general prohibition" is not new to this current motion. It was enacted as a remedy of the WP:ARBPIA3 case decision in November 2015, following occasional successful use of a similar remedy as an AE action in gamergate-related articles. The "extended-confirmed" user group and corresponding protection level were introduced in April 2016, and would most likely never have existed if not for the need for a technical means to enforce the PIA3 decision. All of the other policy development related to its use came after its introduction for arbitration enforcement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yea! How unusual. Let's do it. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Motion: ARBPIA

The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 22:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Ks0stm (TCGE) 00:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm opposed to the last sentence, for the reasons discussed here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. On reflection, having considered the example linked to by NYB. Support the general point of the clarification and would support absent the last sentence which implies that blocking without warning is more commonplace than I think the motion intended it to be. There's circumstances where it's necessary, but they're a minority. Apologies all for this change of heart. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Abstain
Comments
OK, slightly less simple than I thought ;) After confusing myself looking for the original motion text, I finally clued in that this is actually pertaining to WP:ARBPIA (ie, the original case), not WP:ARBPIA3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: perhaps we can do both at once, if there's interest. Reword the clause per your suggestion, and also remove the last sentence in the same motion. Will see what others think. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Would removing the last sentence give the impression blocking without warning is forbidden? Doug Weller talk 11:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest there are circumstances where it is justified, either we could remove the last sentence and leave it to admin discretion, or add a qualifier like on rare occasions. I'm just not keen on implying blocks without warning should be a standard response, as that probably wasn't the intent of the original motion but could be interpreted this way on a strict reading of the above. Other views welcome, as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
In my view, "blocking without warning" should never take place in the sense of "the editor was blocked even though he or she didn't know he or she was doing anything wrong, and would have stopped immediately had he or she been told." (The only exception would be if for edit(s) so bad that they would have been blockable on any article, independent of the special Israel/Palestine rules.) On the other hand, I'm not looking to invite wikilawyering along the lines of "I wasn't specifically warned today about these edits." I expect there is general language about the expectation of warnings from other DS contexts that could be used. But as currently written, my concern about our being perceived as authorizing the sort of out-of-left-field-to-the-editor block that raised a concern last summer is a serious one. We don't want—I certainly don't want—to see blocking of good-faith, unsuspecting editors for inadvertent violations. @Opabinia regalis: as the proposer of the motion (and who was also active in the discussion last year). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
On the one hand, I agree that that sentence is a problem, and just didn't think to take this opportunity to address it. On the other hand, it's been part of this remedy for a long time. (Either I need more coffee, or I can't work out the sequence of amendments listed on the WP:ARBPIA page to find where the text originated. The first version of the general 1RR text links to what appears to be a later amendment, where the term "first offense" isn't used.) I'm the last one to go all WP:BURO, but for some reason PIA-related sanctions in general seem to be particularly attractive for proposed changes that are only indirectly related to the original reason for the ARCA request. This request seemed to involve a very minor change and has attracted very little comment, and I think if we're going to make a different and larger change it should get a little more community exposure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I realized a few hours after I voted that that sentence might be an artifact, in part because it didn't sound like something you'd write. But as the restrictions draw tighter and tighter, it becomes all the more important to encourage everyone to deal with inadvertent, isolated violations in a sensible way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, I would probably not have proposed that myself ;) The only change here is removing the struck-out text and replacing it with the underlined text.
Digging back through the history, we seem to have done a lousy record-keeping job in this particular case, but the earliest version I found including that clause was added here in November 2010, apparently following this discussion, in which consensus was formed to apply a 1RR remedy with text copied from what was then in use for The Troubles, which ultimately traces back to the result of this 2008 AE filing about sanctions in the 2007 Troubles case. Given the length of the breadcrumb trail, I'm surprised the "blocked without warning" problem detailed in that ARCA hasn't come up more often. I don't see any other currently active sanctions that use this wording, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Motions

Logging sanctions

Currently sanctions issued pursuant to any remedy except discretionary sanctions are logged on the case page and discretionary sanctions are logged centrally at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log. From the passing of this motion all arbitration enforcement actions, including sanctions enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision, discretionary sanctions (including appeals and modifications), will be logged together in a centralised log. For this to occur:

  • The clerks are authorised to modify the current central log as required (such as moving the log and creating additional sections).
  • The sections on logging in the discretionary sanctions page are modified as follows:
Discretionary sanctions are to be recorded on the appropriate page of the centralised arbitration enforcement log. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.
  • The following section, titled "Logging", is to be added under the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee procedures page:
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at **LINK TO/NAME OF CENTRAL LOG**. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in the Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.

A central log ("log") of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including discretionary sanctions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at **ADD LINK when finalised**). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.

Voting (logging)

Hidden, pending community and arb discussion below)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
Abstain

Discussion (logging)

Summary of changes
  • Following is a summary of the changes this motion will make:
    • The current discretionary sanctions log will be moved (to a new title, suggestions welcome - maybe Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log).
    • The new AE log will include all discretionary sanctions (and related appeals, etc) as well as (this is the new bit) all arbitration enforcement actions taken pursuant to a case.
      Currently if an editor is topic banned by ArbCom any sanctions used to enforce that would be recorded on the main case page, whereas discretionary sanctions imposed by an admin would be recorded in the centralised DS log.
    • There is a minor change to the wording on what happens when something isn't logged, compare:
      Current - While sanctions and page restrictions are not invalidated by a failure to log, repeated failure to log may result in sanctions.
      Proposed - While sanctions are not invalidated by a failure to log, at **LINK TO/NAME OF CENTRAL LOG** (as long as the action is clearly labelled as arbitration enforcement or AE), repeated failure to log may result in sanctions (such as a prohibition on taking arbitration enforcement actions.
    • The requirement that after 5 years of no entries a year's log page is blanked is removed. Instead the year's log page is untranscluded from the main log. Also introduced is that after all sanctions on a year's log page have expired the page is blanked (given that some sanctions are indefinite, this would only apply if those are lifted or successfully appealed).
    • These requirements now apply to all AE sanctions, not just discretionary sanctions.
That's all for this motion. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf

I would prefer it if the requirement for AE actions to be clearly marked as such applied in every case, not just those where it is not added to the central log.

To make things unambiguous I would like the meaning of "clearly marked" to be defined as: the deletion/protection/etc log and/or edit summary (as appropriate) contains at least one of the exact phrases below (linked or unlinked):

  • "arbitration enforcement" (case insensitive)
  • "AE" (case sensitive)
  • "WP:AE" (case sensitive).

If something is logged as an AE action but is not clearly marked as an AE action, then the AE protections do not apply (to users acting in good faith) until the action is reissued and clearly marked as an AE action (this can be a null edit/reblocking with the same settings, etc, to generate a new log entry). Any uninvolved admin may reissue in this manner, anyone else is strongly encouraged to bring it to the attention of the person making the action and/or an uninvolved admin. If an action is clearly just a reissue to correctly mark it, then the action belongs only to the user who originally made the action, if is unclear both users should be consulted. AE action protections start from when the correctly marked edit summary/action log entry is made, whether this is before or after the central log entry is made.

The last paragraph probably sounds overly bureaucratic, and almost certainly could be better worded, but the intention is to make it clear that:

  • If an action is not explicitly marked as AE it is not
  • If it was logged it was clearly intended as such so any uninvolved admin can explicitly mark it as an AE action on behalf of the original user without excessive hassle and without necessarily taking ownership of it (although I imagine there will be very few instances of this).
  • AE protections for actions start from the point when an action is explicitly marked as an AE action. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I've added a paragraph which includes most of the suggestions you've made. However I haven't included the bit about AE protections not applying to admins acting in good faith as that is too ambiguous and is likely going to result in angst when something inevitably happens. I've also not included the bit about there being specific words in the log entry or edit summary to avoid it being as bureaucratic, since there are already concerns about that. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Capriaf

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Capriaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
48 hour block for violation of 1RR/consensus required on United States presidential election, 2020
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
I am notified. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Capriaf

1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism. I was making a genuine edit and I was taking into consideration the sources that were recommended by the people who reverted my edits. They removed it and blocked me for 48 hours.

Copied from their talk page per email request. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ks0stm

Original edit, revert one, DS notification, revert two. I am open to reconsidering the block if others think that it should be lifted due to the edit being improved with each re-addition and being subsequently accepted after the second revert; however, I think at face value it was a violation of the 1RR/consensus required restriction and that they should have taken to the talk page to discuss improvements to the edit, rather than re-instating the material and litigating over the sourcing via reverts. Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Capriaf

Result of the appeal by Capriaf

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • "1RR/consensus required restriction on the page is meant to prevent vandalism" is totally untrue; the sanctions are to prevent precisely the situation which appears to have arisen here. Capriaf was notified of the "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged" sanction, blanked them thus confirming they were aware of the notification, and immediately restored the disputed content; meanwhile, I'm noting a complete absence of Capriaf's name from Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. This is the system working exactly as intended, although iff Capriaf undertakes not to restore the disputed content without a consensus on the talkpage I wouldn't be averse to unblocking early. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline - Block looks consistent with the relevant DS to me, and isn't over the top in length. I believe it should stand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ach, this is one of those edge cases. The user was clearly trying to improve the edit with the subsequent revert; yes, technically they were in violation but it appears they understand what the problem is - agree with Iridescent, if they agree not to restore the material then an unblock is fine and it appears that the blocking admin agrees. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Would decline. The block for 1RR was technically justified even if the editor might have had good intentions. Since the 48-hour block has expired, the appeal has no further urgency. I would close this as declined without waiting for any further negotiation either with the user or the blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If there are no more comments, I am planning to close this as declined. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Oncenawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 09:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21 March 2017 Restoring of reverted edit without a consensus on talk page.
  2. 19 Martch 2017 WP:CANVASS another user similar to his POV in middle of disagreement.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 April 2016 [1]


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  1. As far as I read the talk page [2] at the moment of the revert there was no consensus to remove the map once again after I restored it [3]
  2. The user pinged another user with similar POV When we started discuss the proper name of the article.Though he pinged it in another thread it was obvious that he will support Onceawhile POV and that what he did [4]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[5]

Discussion concerning Oncenawhile

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Oncenawhile

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Oncenawhile

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The provision-that-keeps-on-giving strikes again. Looks like it was violated, though. El_C 09:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)