| Revision as of 21:31, 1 July 2014 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Chip Berlet: ask Chip Bertlet← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,313 edits →Egad: new section Is there a clerk aroundTag: New topic | ||
| (999 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 20 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Motion 2b == | |||
| == Discretionary sanctions turning into mindless bureaucracy == | |||
| I am just having a ] request thrown out on "procedural" ɡrounds, because apparently I failed to submit the required prior warnings in triple copies with the right kind of rubberstamp and on the correct latest version of the prescribed standard form . Would those arbitrators who are responsible for having turned AE into this absurd parody of a bureaucracy please step forward so that I can punch them in the face? ] ] 16:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Can we finally move the joke that is ] to ] where it belongs? Since clearly its provisions, such as "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request", are a dead letter. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 06:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration Enforcement Question == | |||
| We know that disruptive editing on an article page that is covered by ] is subject to ] sanctions. My question is whether disruptive editing on a talk page for an article that is subject to discretionary sanctions is subject to arbitration enforcement sanctions. ] (]) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. ] (]) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. Then I will be requesting sanctions against disruptive IPs at ]. ] (]) 19:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly where are the instructions for the template to warn the IPs? Is the banner at the top of the talk page sufficient, or do I have to warn the IPs? ] (]) 19:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have to alert the IPs first on their user talk page with {{tl|Ds/alert}}. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::More specifically, that is <nowiki>{{subst:Ds/alert|cf}} or {{subst:Ds/alert|ps}}. By the way, what is the template for the Syrian Civil War? Would that be an extension of {{subst:Ds/alert|a-i}} </nowiki>? Also, the case-sensitivity is annoying. ] (]) 22:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This civil war doesn't seem to fall within any of the topic areas listed at ], except to the probably very limited extent the war may involve Israel. But, to my knowledge, the war is principally a conflict within Syria and among groups unrelated to Israel, so the war as a whole doesn't seem to fit within the scope of the existing sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think that the issue is that "the community" imposed the sanctions at ] or ], rather than the ArbCom. Does that have a different enforcement mechanism? ] (]) 22:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, if any community sanctions apply, they are not enforced via the AE board and are not subject to the DS rules. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} See ], specifically ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == IP area still being swamped by socks == | |||
| I've begun a ] on discussing possible changes to ARBPIA on the matter of socks, if those interested in the matter could join the discussion that would be great. ] (]) 03:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really see how this is an arbitration-related matter. Socks are a problem in many areas, and the only thing that can be done about them is to make individual ] reports with enough evidence for administrators to act upon. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can't seriously believe that SPI is effective against the swarm of puppetmasters and it is related to WP:ARE as a large number of cases are caused by socks. ] (]) 05:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sandstein again is correct that this is not an arbitration matter. But the traditional solution doesn't work, or rather it means:'Please forget article-editing, dear editor, and spend several hours each day checking each edit over dozens of articles of the socks that turn up each day'. The area is becoming unfriendly to editors who actually work articles, and tolerant by default of obvious banned or meatpuppets of banned editors who have obviously ratcheted up the disruption. This is obvious and yet there is no relief. That is not in Sandstein's area of competence: it is a technical matter requiring a change of rules.] (]) 06:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just thought some of this page's watchers might be interested in be a part of improving ARBPIA, guess I was wrong. ] (]) 06:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| My guess is that the problem isn't socks but rather another Zeq/CAMERA-type episode. This would very much be an arbitration-related matter. ] (]) 07:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Could be related to ? ] (]) 07:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging {{ping|Chess|Selfstudier}} who's discussion made me think of this. ] (]) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Personally I think the ARBPIA sanctions need to be looked at again because they are encouraging and enabling sockpuppetry and giving an advantage to those using multiple accounts over good faith editors. There have also been a number of sanctions recently of long term good faith editors after filings at admin boards by obvious sock accounts. Sockpuppetry is more of a problem than edit warring in the topic area so I am not sure it makes sense to have a sanction regime (i.e 1rr) that tackles edit warring but encourages sockpuppetry. ] (]) 10:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :. ] (]) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *We desperately need more restrictions against these "throw-away-socks" which appear at regular intervals. (And we *know* there has been "recruiting" going on here). I suggest that if an editor has less that 250 edits, you might revert them without it counting as your 1RR. So you might revert, say a , without being "tied down" for the next 24 hours. Cheers, ] (]) 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::These type of throw away sockpuppet accounts a dime a dozen on any controversial topic in the IP area. ] (]) 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, Sandstein. I wish I could see evidence of editorial concern from 'both sides'. None is apparent, giving the impression, which troubles me, that the plaintiffs above represent one '''side''' to a dispute. It can be read that way. It can also be read as reflecting the probability that most sockpuppettering and IP one-off edits comes from one direction. This is my assumption, based on 7al years of working here, and I think that the only way this can be handled is, as Sandstein suggests, to compile lists of drive-by editors, sockpuppet suspects, meatpuppet suspects, regardless of which POV is being apparently supported, so that, eventually, administrators or the ARBPIA committee can, at a glance, see the dimensions of the problem. To do this in a manner that is above suspicion of manipulation would require, as suggested, editors identified as concerned with ensuring the precise and neutral presentation of an Israeli perspective also to help out. Perhaps they could comment here, since the silence makes this legitimate concern appear to be a group POV-driven drive by editors often identified as partisans for the other side (a tendentious simplification in my view - what is desired is an equable and level 'playing' field). ] (]) 20:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *If there is ''evidence'' (preferably checkuser-supported) that there is a systemic and widespread sockpuppetry problem in this area, then either discretionary sanctions or a Committee amendment request might be able to do something about it (for example, a revert restriction for new single-purpose accounts). But this would likely involve an amount of evidence and discussion that is beyond the scope of a single AE request. I suggest that a group of established editors representing viewpoints associated with both sides of the conflict should jointly set up a RfC to collect evidence and discuss possible solutions. One or several of these solutions could then be implemented through the arbitration or arbitration enforcement processes. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::As was mentioned, restrictions on reverting, such as ], encourage the use of throw-away sockpuppet accounts. I haven't edited in this area. Are the sockpuppets registered illegitimate users? (If they are unregistered, semi-protection will work.) Also, because of the requirement that an editor be notified of discretionary sanctions, sockpuppets are a way to avoid discretionary sanctions. (They don't avoid the rules against sockpuppetry.) I don't have an obvious answer. ] (]) 17:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They are registered, throw-away accounts, and they are a huge problem. (Dlv999 listed some above.) One example for today: ], which is an article I have written a large amount of the history of, had today, removing stuff with the edit line "speculative and un-referenced". As anyone can check: it was referenced. I reverted it, and is therefor in effect unable to edit it more for the next 24 hours. And to Sandstein: you do realise that any RfC will be swarmed by socks? ] (]) 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is the ] imposed directly by ], or is it imposed on a case-by-case basis by uninvolved administrators? If it is directly imposed by the ArbCom, then it illustrates unintended (but predictable after the fact) consequences, because by locking honest editors into one revert, it permits dishonest editors to use throw-away socks. If so, maybe the ArbCom should be asked by motion to reconsider ] as making life easier for dishonest editors and harder for honest ones. ] (]) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(ec)Halhul almost immediately after Huldra's edit had two newbies step in (71.125.245.49/Allisonraty (talk | contribs), with a violent smear of the town. Fortunately I too had the page bookmarked. I expunged the nonsense. And was reverted, in good faith by ] (see his talk page), who didn't catch what was going on, being unfamiliar with the background. Result. I can't fix it, and hope Bh, seeing the problem outlined on his talk page, will revert. I have almost a thousand pages bookmarked and see dozens of problems like this everyday, and can't cope with more than a few percent. Neither can anyone else. I'm fine with wikipedia's open-door policy of recruitment. But some remedy for what serious contributors have to put up with, unnecessarily because of the lack of a prophylactic rule preventing such chronic abuses, should now be considered, because of the attrition it causes to good editors (I exclude myself), and to the encyclopedic aims of wikipedia. ] (]) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I was just trying to straighten out some anonymous edits and get a neutral pov on the Halhul page. I did not realize there was some sort of edit war going on. ] made the reasonable point that the event was not connected to the village, so I reverted my edit. ] (]) 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: You are forgiven, such things are easily done. Cheers, ] (]) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect? == | |||
| :::::Robert McClenon: ] is imposed directly by ], and it is valid for all articles in the Israel/Palestine area. Which means virtually every article I edit (I mostly write history on places in Israel/Palestine.) I have about 3,500 articles on my watch-list, and have lost count on how many throw-away accounts I see each day. I have worked in this area for 9 years, and while the 1RR rule has mostly been very beneficial (IMO), it has also had exactly the unintended side-effects that you state. I would absolutely ''not'' remove the 1RR. What we need is a rule for more established editors to be able to revert those throw-away accounts, ''without'' becoming tied up for 24 hours. Therefore, my suggestion that we could revert anyone with less than a certain number of edits, without it being counted against ones "1RR"-quota. Cheers, ] (]) 21:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In that case, ] is an honorable experiment that has partially failed. ArbCom should be asked to revise it. ] (]) 22:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: ]:The ] must be amended, before it drives all content creators away. (But not changed back to 3RR!) Take the ] -example. Both Nishidani and I are long-term content contributors to the article, see . It normally gets 20-30 views pr day. Yesterday the bodies of the 3 kidnapped israelis was found in a field near Halhul, feelings are apparently running high, and pageviews for the article . Lots of socks and un-registered edit the article page, but due to 1RR I cannot even revert slander like , as I had "used up" my 1RR-quota for the day. (Btw, there is no proof, or even indication that the kidnappers are from Halhul. The suspected named kidnappers are from ].) Things like this happen all the time in the I/P area; some article gets in the news, lots of page-views and lots of socks vandalise the article. And we are helpless to stop it. Cheers, ] (]) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Imo, per the principle of ], no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Personally I think that all articles covered by sanctions like ARBPIA should be permanently semi-protected. It is "against Misplaced Pages philosophy" but the area is now pretty mature and the majority of new editors are not up to any good. Semi-protection would not prevent socking, but would slow it down a great deal. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I´m really ignorant here: how many edits do you need before you can edit semi-protected articles? ] (]) 21:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::10, and that's why some socks make 10 edits to their own user page before going on a frenzy. It keeps out the editor's who follow rules, not the one's who don't. ] (]) 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I want 0RR on new ARBPIA focused accounts until 500 edits and 6 months, a ban on these accounts from filing reports related to ARBPIA articles, and that accounts under 0RR can be reverted without counting towards 1RR which I want to stay for all experienced editors. | |||
| :This would not hurt the thousands of true new accounts/IPs who make a productive edit or two, but the "new" editors who make 20 reverts within 10minutes of joining wikipedia would be quickly blocked and even a swarm would not take over an article per 1RR as they currently do. ] (]) 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If an article is semi-protected, then non-registered can´t edit, can they? Non-registered occasionally ''do'' good edits, even in the I/P area ( is an non-registered correcting my blunder, when I mixed up ] and ] <facepalm>). If so, I would prefer something along the lines of what Sepsis suggests. Cheers, ] (]) 22:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The rule is 10 edits and 4 days. That's long enough to slow down someone who wants to create an account on an ad-hoc basis for joining a current dispute. Also, IP editors are disallowed altogether. If 10 edits to user space are enough that should be changed (where does one go to request it??) – it should be 10 edits to article or project space. Although your proposals would be better, the addition of another layer of rules worries me. It is already hard for ordinary editors to keep track of everything. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Then semi-protected would certainly be an improvement from today. I am concerned about two issues, though. Firstly, un-registered sometimes ''do'' useful work. Secondly, (and most importantly) when I see the huge disruption/waste of time caused by quacking ducks (a couple of the more belligerent ones active presently could easily sail through 10 edits and 4 days) I wonder if the "extra layer" isn´t worth it. Presently it is difficult to do any useful work with this duck-army around. Cheers, ] (]) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If an edit count entry requirement for the topic area was introduced it should probably be based on manual edits rather edits made with tools like STiki. Many of the people who come here as socks . Semi-protection and the autoconfirmation requirements don't provide useful protection in practice, as can be seen from the data available from the many NoCal (]) and AndresHerutJaim (]) socks for example. Socks are organized in the sense that they plan ahead and make sure that they have the resources in place in advance. A good example of this is when Precision123 (a Shamir1 sock) switched to the AmirSurfLera account. See the graph of daily and cumulative edits. Precision123's last edit was 2014-05-26. The dramatic change of slope in the graph for AmirSurfLera shortly after that , probably indicates the switch over from one account to the other. Another example of preparing resources in advanceis NoCal's use of multiple concurrent socks (see the dates in ]). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Before I forget, and for those who haven't seen it, there is a little bit of data available that shows the effects of semi-protection among other things for an article of interest to many (confirmed) socks at the time. The data is for ] article and talk page between 2012-04-08 and 2013-01-10 (and there's some background info ]) | |||
| ::::::* (PDF) | |||
| ::::::* (PDF) | |||
| ::::::* | |||
| ::::::<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Egad == | ||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This is a question about discretionary sanctions. Is it too early to request that the article ] be placed under the discretionary sanctions recommended by the pending case "American Politics"? I ask because we are seeing the behavior described in that case occurring on this BLP. ] (]) 21:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Absurd -- Chip Bertlet himself said the edit citing an opinion as an opinion was fine -- but Viriditas seems to assert ownership of the BLP. shows that the "problem" does not exist. This is an example of an editor seeking discord where none exists. Cheers. ] (]) 21:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:48, 7 December 2024
| Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration | Shortcuts |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Motion 2b
Can an administrator use this to grant more words or remove the word limit from certain discussions? I'm trying to avoid making this another whole thing, so if there's general agreement on it I'd prefer not to open another ARCA. Pinging @Chess and Selfstudier: who's discussion made me think of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- HJM seems to think so. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish I think yes. ArbCom routinely grants wordlimit extensions on its own pages, so it makes total sense for admins to do so here. I think the idea to remove the word limit from discussions is fine, but that admins will have to be conscientious about doing so. We're not trying to make this too onerous or counterproductive, we're trying to give admins the tools to tamp down problems. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Does the word limit apply to discussions that started before the motion took effect?
There are many discussions that began before the word limit motion passed. Does the word limit only apply to new discussions, or does it apply to older ones as well? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chess Imo, per the principle of ex post facto, no it doesn't apply to older ones still ongoing, such discussions would be grandfathered in. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Egad
Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)