Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  1. Archive 1
Shortcut:
WT:AE

Contents

[edit] Isr-Palest cases

Hi. do we need a discussion section here, re cases in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area? looks like quite a few cases are popping here. just thought I'd mention it, and note that here. thanks. feel free to add any comments or resolution efforts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Thatcher 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I can see for having a special dedicated page would be if requests pertaining to one case were dominating this board to the extent that other matters were being swamped out or not being attended to. Short of that situation, I don't know of any reason that one case would require a dedicated page and would trust to the instincts of the administrators who regularly handle AE requests (such as yourself) as to the best page set-up and formatting. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you do, get ready for a flood of neverending AE cases. It was set up because we were the only folks willing to give a damn to try to keep this thing in bounds and because the usual suspects were running to us anyway. If AE wants to take it off our hands, well, not quite "good riddance to bad rubbish", but I'm glad someone else will be dealing with them. SirFozzie 128.222.37.20 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am neither an arbitrator nor an "arbitration enforcement regular", but am one those who has been involved in discussion of the enforcement of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, to which as an admin I was a named party. I was not involved in creating the The Troubles/Enforcement requests page, but my understanding is that it was done because of the sheer volume of enforcement issues arising from that arbcom, and the benefits of centralising them, However, I agree that it would be useful for this to be more visible and to involve more outside parties. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as "sheer volume" is concerned, I count 10 logged enforcement actions against 4 editors in 4 months. That's not a lot, all things considered (check the enforcement logs of Armenia-Azerbaijani 1 and 2, or look in the archives and count the complaints against ScienceApologist). The value of WP:AE I think is that reports are made, investigated, and closed, and we try to keep the partisan squabbling to the minimum needed to evaluate the complaint. And of course any admin is welcome there as at any specialty page. Thatcher 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That's only the ones that are logged. You're missing Sarah777's block for incivility recently (although that was more the Great Irish Famine ArbCom case), Vintagekits and David Lauder's bannings for running sock farms, and the constant low level warfare over the Ulster Banner, and that's just what comes to mind in a few seconds thought. It's gotten so bad between the partisans on both sides, that even the "Board of Outer Darkness where there is Gnashing of teeth" had to lock down threads with the usual suspects, because it got so freaking ridiculous. Again, good luck, you'll need it. SirFozzie (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, for starters fix the log, please, then. Thatcher 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the only one that's not logged is Sarah's (which I won't comment on, because I wasn't around for the discussion). So now, I get to formally wash my hands of the whole thing, and go back to my break. SirFozzie (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The very fact that editors who were blocked & editors who are banned (and complaining through their sockpuppets) are complaining at all? Is reason enough to keep this AE in tact. There's alot of political agendists out their (not to mention, alot of hard heads). GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well actually Fozzie I wasn't involved in that; I had my very own RfC some short time earlier arising from a different dispute. The earlier Famine Arbcom nonetheless made a bizarre ruling that I be banned from making "anti-British" remarks on talk-pages, since when (predictably) numerous drones have tried to characterise all manner of edits and comments as such. That has led to more trouble than my remarks ever did. As I have not been blocked under the terms of the Troubles Arbcom I must insist that you most certainly do not log my illigitimate blocks (including one from yourself) here. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, Sarah, I have formally washed my hands of the whole situation. I will not be logging any of your blocks, (whether you feel they are legitimate or not), anywhere. SirFozzie (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Good. Because you may (or not) recall that the last flurry of blocks arose not from editing or from making references to "the Troubles" but rather for annoying edit-warring Admins who alleged "incivility". Sarah777 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If Newyorkbrad and Thatcher want to devote their energies to all this conflict, then I think that's something to be welcomed. And if they are just hoping to involve other admins, that's great too, because it will be well-deserved respite for John, Rockpocket, Tyrenius, Alison, SirFozzie and the other admins who have been firefighting this conflict for ages. Any further requests which I receive for admin intervention in this area will be directed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(AOL)Me too.(/AOL) SirFozzie (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles does not need a specialist enforcement page. Overwhelming volume, my balls. Have you checked the log of WP:ARBMAC recently, or even WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2? That page should be redirected here where reports will get more eyes. Moreschi (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank all the administrators and editors that have helped out with enforcing The Troubles ruling (and all the other rulings the Arbitration Committee makes.) It is a thankless job, indeed.

I think that merging the Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests is a good idea since it will help bring more fresh eyes to the situation. One of best aspects of the wikistyle of collaboration is that we can hand off issues for others to handle so we do not get too burn out when dealing with frustrating situations. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I want to emphasize again that any uninvolved admin is welcome to help out with WP:AE. There is no anointed priesthood, its not reserved for Arbcom clerks or anything like that. I've done a lot of the work over the last year but lately there has been a surge of new involvement which has been greatly appreciated, and more is always welcome. Thatcher 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'd like to ask a question, if i may. Is it possible to request the active mediation and intervention of administrators of this page in discussions here, to prevent them from going too far off track? i feel this might behelpful in the section pertaining to Jaakobou, in which both sides have reasonable concerns, but it seems hard to prevent a whole slew of issues of related issues from getting tossed in as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reports should be concise. Editors are discouraged from trying to re-fight the Arbitration case here. Thatcher 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AbUse on Hindi Wikipedia

www.hi.wikipedia.org

All Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia are involved and particularly (1) Rajiv Mass (2) Purnima Varman and (3) Manish Vashistha confirmed. Other three are in line of confirmation.

Rajiv Mass has opend dummy account in name of Ravi Jain on Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English and many languages with IP 124.124.36.4 of Rajiv Mass and harassing other members on many languages.

hi.wikipedia gu.wikipedia mr.wikipedia en.wikipedia

Everything with fact is given on Hindi Wikipedia and all Admn. know.

In case all Admn. on Hindi wikipedia are involved, please, bring this fact to entire world.

I am from India and feel very ashmed that my brothers are involved in Vandals activities on wikipedia.

For this notice board fact can be seen by nacked eye on :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vkvora2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jainjain

copy of this is pasted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics

I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr vkvora

First of all, it's totally incorrect complaint posted by Mr. V K Vora. He has long been publishing incorrect materials. We suggested them to move to proper format and don't write incorrect, sensitive materials. He did not listen and instead started abusing other people. At that point, He was banned by my fellow administrator Mr. Rajeev Mass for 3 months. Afterwards, he started using different IP Address and started spoiling many articles. He started putting all incorrect information in administrator talk pages, community talk page. Many of the IP addresses were temporarily locked, but Mr. V K Vora did not stop. Ofcourse, One administrator could be wrong, but how come it's more than 5 administrators which found this behavior very abusive. We can't ban all IP addresses and we won't do that either. The IP Address which Mr V K Vora use, is probably from MTNL India. As an administrator on Hindi Wikipedia, I would ask you to ignore Mr Vora's activities everywhere.

Thanks. Hindi Wikipedia Administrator - Manish Vashistha - 21 March 2008 18:34 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse on Hindi Wikipedia

The above post is not signed and I request Manish Vashistha to sign it after log in. I signed. vkvora. vkvora2001 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano II

(moving from closed thread)

This was a cowardly block by an arbitrator with a conflict of interest. It was executed to disguise the fact that the Arbcom had performed a complete U turn on one of their own passed resolutions. It is further evidence of this flawed and failing Arbcom. Giano (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit, and off topic. You were blocked because of your approach. If you want to the thorn in the side of arbcom, by all means to so, but if you want support you need to act appropriately. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
John, that was a clear breach of WP:Civility; though I imagine you are in no danger of any sanction. Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Need anyone point out the irony of swearing at someone to defend a civility block? Please temper your language. Risker (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
At least he didn't tell Giano to "get lost," which would have been really uncivil. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The block has expired. Giano's opinion is noted. This is now a closed issue. If it is necessary to further debate the matter, Giano's talk page or WT:RFAR would be more appropriate. Thatcher 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid Thatcher the matter is far from closed, but your opinion is noted too. You will obviously be sanctioning your foul mouthed friend above, or does incivility only exist in the minds of certain Arbitrators. Thank you Giano (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of a persistent problem, and no arbitration sanctions in place, although under the circumstance I agree with Risker that the words were poorly chosen. Thatcher 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to instructions

FYI, per discussion at the WP:AE#User:Lokyz thread, I have added the following to the AE instructions.[1]

:* (recommended) A diff showing that the user has previously been cautioned at their talkpage about the sanctions

I'd actually like to go a step further, adding a section higher up on this AE page that a warning is an excellent idea both "on the spot" of an infraction, and at a user's talkpage. I think that this may also help ArbCom sanctions to scale more gracefully. It gets the community more involved with reminders about enforcement, and then limits posts here at AE only to those cases where users are clearly ignoring their sanctions, despite reminders to the contrary. Before I actually add a section though, I wanted to test the waters here though. Anyone else have an opinion on this? --Elonka 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would like to propose more improvements, mainly:
  • that person/s who is/are "accused" should be informed on his talk page about complaint, and this notification diff should be presented in the case; same goes with articles (notification on proper article talk page).
  • Another one, that ruling (especially in regard to sanctions) should be implemented at least with 24h. delay starting from then notification is presented to user/article talk page, mainly because due to different time zones as it can be hard to respond to the case. M.K. (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My problem with this that I have seen in the past users who warned others accused of harassing them. Also, if a user is involved in a dispute, him warning the other user may be biased. Again, requests for a neutral party to review the situation have been portrayed as "block/warn shopping". If we would change AE, I'd like to make sure that such incidents as the above would not reoccur.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. "Block shopping" is a big problem - as is blocking by Admins involved in disputes of the people they are in dispute with. Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocking if you are involved is bad. What about warning? What about asking a third party for input? Does it differ if you contact an editor, or post to a public forum? We need a clear guideline how asking others for input differs from block shopping. Too often I have seen a pattern: "Editor A does something editor B finds problematic, Editor B complains about editor A seeking neutral parties to review Editor's A behavior, Editor A complains about harassment/block shopping/defaming coming from Editor B...". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I received this message

I received this message, can someone enlighten me on what this is supposed to mean, what I am expected to do, or some other insight into why this is on my page? It looks bad to me, and I'm a bit afraid to remove it and incur someone's wrath. User:Pedant (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been contributing to articles related to 9/11. There has been a recent arbitration case about conduct on those articles, and you are being warned of it. The arbitrators found that there was a history of poor editorial conduct on these articles, and have encouraged administrators to be more active about policing user conduct. Read the linked case for more details. Absent a specific note from the placing admin, I don't know whether the warning was triggered by any specific conduct of yours or simply by noting that you are being significantly active on related articles. GRBerry 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
According to my reading of {{uw-9/112}}, this template is for users who have "caused disruption or made contentious edits" (otherwise {{Uw-9/11}} should be used). I too am curious as to why diffs and/or links were not also provided; "implications of inappropriate behaviour" without reference seems a rather unconstructive message. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and the "placing admin" does not appear to be an admin. Rollbacker, yes; sysop, no. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Good catch! I didn't even look at that. I've cautioned the one issuing the warning. Unless a report on the project page shows specifics, it will go nowhere. The warning is a good general caution, so need not be retracted, but in the absence of specifics (which ICB declined to provide upon request), it is not very meaningful. GRBerry 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know it was significant; I'm just in the (often bad) habit of correcting mistakes where I find them.  :)
However, seeing as it is significant, might it be a good idea to add to (the noinclude parts of) {{uw-9/11}} and {{uw-9/112}} something along the lines of the following?
  • "Arbitration case warnings should be given by administrators; others are advised to seek the attention of an uninvolved administrator (WP:AE is the recommended forum) should the arbitration case need enforcing."
It is currently not obvious to the uninvolved. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Normally the committee imposes that requirement themselves in the case. I don't see it in this case's non-standard language, and haven't dug in to figure out if the omission is intentional or an oversight as they wrote the non-standard language. So I don't want to do it myself. GRBerry 14:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcing ArbCom sanctions on anons

Hi, I have a question that I don't think is major enough to warrant an official "Request for clarification", but I was still wondering if someone could help...

I'm currently sorting through a number of disputes involving Hungarian & Slovakian editors, which fall under the scope of the Digwuren case. Now, I understand about notifying the most disruptive of the editors that they're under editing restrictions, and I know about putting the template on their userpage, and logging it at the case.

However, I've got a couple of these editors who are evidently "account-hopping" through anons, changing every few days, and I'm trying to figure out how to handle it. Do I "warn" each one individually and log it? This could fill up the log with a lot of IPs pretty quickly, especially if I'm in a situation where as soon as I warn one anon, they drop it and move to another anon, before I've issued any blocks.

Or, should I just use my best judgment, keep an eye out for disruptive anons and block them if they look like they're part of the same pattern (making the same reverts on the same articles, using the same incivility)?

Or, do I have the authority, as an uninvolved admin, to tell an anon, "You are under editing restrictions, you must use a single named account"?

Has anyone dealt with this situation before? How have you handled it? Thanks, Elonka 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that disruptive unregistered editors should be blocked with little fuss. If they want to rethink their behavior and register, they can send an @ with such a request - but as you've noted, many of them are little more wiki-experienced trolls. The less time we waste on them, the better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of the status of Remedies re. enforcement

Per the arb policy section WP:AP#Final decision, on the difference between a Remedy and Enforcement, will someone, preferably an arbitrator, please clarify if Remedies of the form 'arbcom instructs....' are actionable by admins without an enforcement section in a case, if the instruction is not adhered to.

I quote from that section: "Remedies and Enforcements, once the case has closed as described below, may be enforced by intervention by administrators" and "Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done)".

So, as I currently read it, remedies instructing.... are binding decress, enforceable by administrators. MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)