Arbitration Committee proceedings

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/5/0
Rio Grande 223		19 June 2024	0/1/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking]]	none	none	30 April 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]]	none	none	18 April 2010

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	18 June 2024

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Initiated by Sandstein at 07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified)
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
Admins involved in the AE discussion: notified via a link to this request in the discussion.

Statement by Sandstein

I make this request in my capacity as an admin working at WP:AE.

In June 2009, the Committee banned Pmanderson from editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates" for a year (Wikipedia:RFAR/DDL#Pmanderson topic banned).
On 17 August 2009, the Committee passed a motion which does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban.
On 28 August 2009, as a result of this AE thread, Shell Kinney (then not yet an arbitrator) added the following to the case page's sanction log: "Pmanderson (talk · contribs) restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption." Nobody appears to have objected to this.
In April 2010, Tony1 requested the enforcement of this widened ban after Pmanderson appeared to have violated it.

Administrators now disagree at WP:AE#Result concerning Pmanderson about whether Shell Kinney's widening of the ban should be enforced. Please advise about how to proceed. Sandstein 07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Carcharoth: Thanks for the clarification. Your diff shows that the motion did indeed restrict the scope of Pmanderson's topic ban, but that this amendment was recorded in such a way (by leaving the 14 June 2009 timestamps intact) as to make the reader believe that the amended version was the one originally passed. I agree that this is most unhelpful and that the clerks should consider establishing a better practice for the recording of amendments.; With respect to your proposal at AE that Pmanderson just agree to the widened ban, I am not sure that this would resolve the problem, because he could at any time withdraw such an agreement, and then we would be back to the same question under discussion here: which are the binding restrictions on Pmanderson? Sandstein 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pmanderson

This was a piece of inadvertence on my part; if I had realized, as I ought to have done, that the discussion linked to from WT:NOR involved an active MOS page (as well as some MOS regulars), I would not have commented - certainly not before Shell's expanded sanction expires a couple of months from now, and probably not then.

I will not now do so; therefore, if bans are preventative rather than punitive, it has done its work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carcharoth: It is User:Tony1 who has taken an uncharacteristic interest in Talk:Catholic Church, even more than Ohconfucius; but most of the rest of your comment will apply to both of them. The substance of his effort to gather mud from a five-month-old edit dispute was answered (by a third party) [1] . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius

Arbs should evaluate whether the above statement is sincere and credible in light of previous comments which appear to strongly indicate that he was attempting to argue his way out of a topic ban extension based on a technicality rather than out of genuine contrition for his "inadvertance". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth was right to point out my indiscretions in referring to Pmanderson via nick-names. I have apologised to them both for this and will not do it again.
The MoS pages themselves have been stable. The occasional tension on MOS, MOSNUM and MOSLINK talk pages is not in a way that is damaging to the project. I will do more to exercise restraint and encourage calm at all times on these pagers. I hope this is a satisfactory response to your concerns. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Since my previous comment (at arbitration enforcement) has been raised recently (at the current WP:AE thread), and it concerned User:Ohconfucius, I would like the arbitrators to consider that previous comment I made, along with recent behaviour by Ohconfucius, and to ascertain whether his combative approach is helping here, and whether a widening of the topic ban on Ohconfucius to cover all MOS and style pages (similar to the widening applied to Pmanderson) will help here.

My comment, back in August 2009, was here, and can be read in full context here in the arbitration enforcement thread closed by Shell (before she was an arbitrator). Back then, I pointed out that Ohconfucius had, with this edit, referred to Pmanderson as "the style anarchist Pam Anderson". I made the case that this was a deliberate insult by Ohconfucius, but nothing was done at the time, possibly because it was later struck by Ohconfucius. Given this, and noticing the WP:AE thread, I decided to take a closer look at Ohconfucius's conduct here.

From what I can see, Ohconfucius sees Pmanderson as a "MOS style" opponent and pushes back against him whenever he can, as witnessed by the edits here (objecting to the "words to watch" edits due to having that page on his watchlist) and here (complaining about Pmanderson on an unrelated topic and for some reason trying to link it to the enforcement request). I can't see any previous involvement that Ohconfucius has had with the Catholic Church topic. I would suggest asking Ohconfucius why he has suddenly taken an interest in Pmanderson's editing on the Catholic Church topic.

As for recent combative behaviour by Ohconfucius, there are several examples (all from the last two weeks): here (a strike-out of unnecessary commentary, which doesn't really undo the harm done by making such comments); another insulting of Pmanderson here (using the nickname "Mandy" that Pmanderson has previously objected to - see here); using the word hogwash in an edit summary; telling another editor they need to grovel; making insinuations as here, the edit summary here (later apologised for here).

From what I can see, tensions still run high at various MOS and style pages, because there are more people than just Pmanderson who fail to control themselves on those pages (and more than just Ohconfucius as well). I think the whole MOS and style pages still suffer from people who take a very combative attitude to all this (showing an unwillingness to discuss civilly or reasonably, and unable to compromise). This was, in my opinion, the underlying problem in the date delinking case, and in some cases the root verbal incivility and attitude of some of the participants at MOS and style pages is still causing problems. I would urge that the attitude of all editors actively involved in MOS and style pages is given closer scrutiny, starting with Pmanderson and Ohconfucius, and including any other editors previously or currently sanctioned who are continuing the conduct that led to their sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Sandstein

Sandstein, your second bullet point ("does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban") is incorrect. The motion passed by the Arbitration Committee, that you linked to in your first bullet point (the text of which is also on the case talk page), did modify Pmanderson's topic ban. The diff of the clerk enacting that change is here. Search for "Pmanderson" and you will see both the change, and what Shell later re-widened the ban to include (she was effectively reversing the narrowing that had taken place). In my view, the clerk making the change here should have made this clearer by collapsing the old remedies and writing in new ones below the collapsed ones, rather than just overwriting them and misleadingly leaving in both the date as the date when the case closed and the votes from the proposed decision, rather than the date the motion was passed and the vote numbers from the motion. Collapsing the old remedies and adding in the new ones avoids administrators like Sandstein having to dig through the history to find out what happened here. I did actually point this out at the time, but it seems my suggestions were never acted upon. Sandstein, do you think replacing the over-writing with collapsed old remedies (dated for when the case closed, with the voting figures from the case) and visible new remedies (dated for when the motion passed, with voting figures from the motion) would help make things clearer? Also, would it have been clearer if Shell (or a clerk responsible for the page) had in addition to this edit made a note in the section containing the wording of Pmanderson's topic ban? Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim Song

The general agreement of the administrators who commented in the AE thread is that in the absence of an explicit provision in the motion authorizing re-widening of the ban, Shell's sanction does not appear to be authorized. (My disagreement with Sandstein at the AE thread is over whether we should address the validity of the sanction at all when no party has contested it.) I do not see how the motion can be interpreted to authorize admins to widen the topic ban on their own discretion - Coren's comment that there will be "very little patience towards renewed hostilities" (1) does not address the question who is to impose sanctions, and (2) is not voted upon by the committee. One can similarly argue that NYB's comment that "If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her" means reinstating the original remedy should be done by the committee, not individual admins, and the restriction on amendment requests in the motion that did pass would seem to support that view.

In this case, nothing in the remedies or motion passed explicitly empowers administrator to do anything, and if the committee nonetheless thinks that administrators are empowered to act in those circumstances, it would be helpful to clarify the source of that authority - is it the "spirit" of the decision at issue (something necessarily vague and sometimes difficult to discern), the comments of the individual arbitrators (which may not have been reviewed, not to mention endorsed, by the full committee), or something else? Does this also extend to other cases unrelated to date delinking? Or, the committee might wish to pass a motion explicitly authorizing administrators to impose sanctions in this case, and retroactively confirming Shell's sanction, which would resolve the matter at hand without having to tackle the questions above. Tim Song (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recused, but as I commented at one of the earlier discussions of this (as an editor, not an arbitrator), I've done so again here, suggesting a way to resolve this with a minimum of fuss. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I've also made a statement above, which is in addition to the AE comment. I'll restrict any further comments to the statement area above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a first comment, I think it is clear that the original return to the wide interpretation of the topic ban was both anticipated as a possibility and made explicit as the inevitable consequence of misbehavior ("very little patience towards renewed hostilities"). Therefore, there is no doubt that the wider sanction is valid and applies.
That being said, that the topic ban of one editor has been widened does not give license to the other editors for disruptive behavior (or any form of antagonism); and that the role of Ohconfucius in this incident may well be worth a closer examination at enforcement. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the wider sanction is valid and does apply. Also, that other editors should endeavor not to use these sanctions as clubs in debates. The role that other editors played in this may be looked at as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse, as I provided evidence in the original case. Steve Smith (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Initiated by NW (Talk) at 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [2]
Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Moreschi, acting under the discretionary sanctions authorized under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, placed Armenian Genocide on WP:1RR about two years ago. Sandstein is disputing the fact that Moreschi had the authority to do so, as he believes that discretionary sanctions were meant to be applied per-editor and not per-article. I request that the Arbitration Committee please clarify if Moreschi's action was appropriate and enforceable. NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I agree that ArbCom clarification would be helpful here. I have explained the reasons why I have doubts whether the remedy covers this type of sanction at the AE thread. Sandstein 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since arbitrators appear to agree that article-level sanctions are or ought to be permitted, I suggest that the decisions providing for discretionary sanctions be amended to that effect, so as to prevent this sort of uncertainty in the future. Sandstein 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

In principle, it's possible to create an article-level 1RR restriction from a literal reading of the provisions for discretionary sanctions, if we assume (a) that the editnotice on the article constitutes a sufficient warning as required by ¶2, and (b) that the sanction being imposed is not the 1RR itself, but rather the 24-hour block, with the violation of the 1RR being merely the necessary evidence that the user "seriously fails to adhere to... normal editorial process". This is obviously not a particularly intuitive reading of the provisions—but, on the other hand, the time that has elapsed without Moreschi's interpretation being challenged suggests that it is one found useful by the community. The real question, I suppose, is whether we should modify the DS provisions to explicitly allow such sanctions; comments on that would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether a strict reading of the wording allows it (and I tend to agree with Kirill that it does), I tend to encourage "least-sufficient" restrictions when possible; and a limit placed on the specific article that's the locus of a dispute tends to be considerably less intrusive than limits placed on specific editors — and potentially much less open to accidental unfairness. — Coren ^(talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kirill and Coren; I think the spirit of discretionary sanctions is to allow admins leeway to find the least restrictive way to resolve an issue. Shell ^babelfish 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "unofficial" 1RR restrictions on articles("unofficial" in that it was created and enforced by administrators and not the committee) at least partially damper the flames on troublesome areas. I would support making a change either in how ArbCom hands down discretionary sanctions to explicitly allow this kind of option, or indeed modify the policy to allow that. SirFozzie (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current solution seems to be working fine, and I believe Kirill's interpretation is appropriate under the circumstances. While my preference is generally to attach sanctions to users rather than articles, in some cases an article can be such an attractive nuisance that this is necessary. Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely; I have seen uninvolved, legitimate editors who arrive at an article to make perfectly normal copy-edit improvements be threatened with blocks (and even, in at least one case, actually blocked) because they didn't read the talk page in advance of editing and weren't aware of the sanction.
If there are no further questions, I believe this section can be archived in 48 hours. Risker (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think there would be any benefit in amending the provisions to more explicitly permit such restrictions? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this clarification makes that a pointless exercise for existing sanctions, though it would probably be a good idea to alter our "boilerplate" remedy wording to clarify this for future use. — Coren ^(talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the matter in hand here has been clarified (the 1RR restriction is valid) and that arbitrators can discuss amending the boilerplate the next time this comes up. I agree that 1RR is useful sometimes, but like Risker I am wary of it being misused and used heavy-handedly. We shouldn't encourage overuse of 1RR restrictions, but only use where it is needed (similarly, articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely, but more to have them in place until an article of a reasonable standard gets written, which is the true ultimate goal). If an article reaches a good standard (e.g. featured), and is still subject to problems, then a different process is needed there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]