Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive (Enforcement 2006-2008)

Looks good, but...
I removed "Courtesies, such as 3RR, that many editors use as an entitlement, might not apply." The 3RR is not a courtesy -- it is an electric fence. Otherwise, it looks okay, although to be honest I'm not sure if anything beyond the first couple of sentences in the note to admins is worth keeping. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's verbose. The 3rr thing, I was just trying to get across that convicted revert warriors shouldn't even be given 3rr.  Tangent: IMHO, 3RR needs an edit before and a 4th revert to violate, for five edits in order to get blocked - that's too much for anyone. SchmuckyTheCat 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily an edit before; 3RR violations are sometimes to text inserted by someone else; and often to text inserted some months before, while the other portions of the article are rewritten by someone else. Septentrionalis 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was I reverted?
Can someone explain why my edits were reverted? Were they without merit, or did I post my information in the wrong place? --69.117.7.63 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Right to defend
I'd like to propose to add the following clause to the note to administrators to better protect the right to defend, and to avoid actions being taken based on one-sided view: " Action(s) should not be taken within the 168-hour (7-day) period after the relevant user(s) are notified at his/her/their user talk page(s), unless he/she/they has/have responded to the request(s) here, or has/have continued their disruptive behaviour. The period should be extended accordingly if the user(s) is/are blocked for whatever reason(s) within the period, so that his/her/their right to have sufficient time to defend his/her/their position(s) is guaranteed. ". &mdash; Instantnood 21:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not another step of dispute resolution. Like 3RR, AN/I, Vandal, etc, notification and discussion aren't required.  It's assumed Administrators who wish to enforce will assume good faith on the person under arbcom sanction.  If the person has been blocked, they can still appeal with the unblock template. SchmuckyTheCat 22:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How could you ensure the person who puts up a request is not abusing, by providing one-sided evidence and not giving the full picture? What would you suggest to compensate the time lost as a result of block? &mdash; Instantnood 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why administrators have brains. It's about user behavior, not content. An admin can see, by the edit histories of the articles and by the user contribs of the person reported, whether or not the behavior being reported has validity. If that behavior is disruptive (or that behavior is what is sanctioned by ArbCom) then a violation has occured.  It doesn't matter if they are "right" in a content dispute!
 * Don't start revert games here. None of the abuse reporting pages require notification to the user being reported. It may be a courtesy, but it should not be a requirement. SchmuckyTheCat 22:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. An administrator relies partly on what the person reports to determine how to react. The reporters can't always be trusted. There could be people who deliberately attempts to influence administrators in bad faith, and there are more people who simply make mistakes. &mdash; Instantnood 22:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Administrators don't act without investigating a situation. For instance, the SqueakBox complaint against Hagiographer is still under investigation after some time because it's not  clear that SqueakBox's identification of Hagiographer as a sock puppet of Zapatancas is correct. --Tony Sidaway 14:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doctoring other users comments
What is the policy towards doctoring the comments of other userrs on this page? eg, SqueakBox 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hagiographer shouldn't do that. I'll ask him to stop. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Notification
I'm interested to know why it is not considered necessary to notify the user being reported. &mdash; Instantnood 22:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The user being reported is presumed to know that he's under probation or parole. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Help!!!
Please show me how to fix
 * As you see the text is over lapping the:

Noticeboard Archives: Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51: Incident Archives: Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120: 3RR Archives: Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22: Noticeboard - Incidents - 3RR - Checkuser: Sock puppets - ArbCom enforcement: Talk - Backlog - All archives:

Box.


 * I have removed the message box, leaving the underlying comment/code that Werdnabot uses to get settings on a page. This is how Administrators' noticeboard and a few other places are, so I guess it works. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone home?
I posted on this noticeboard a while ago but I haven't seen any response. Des anyone monitor this page?

Justforasecond 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people look at it sometimes. Apparently the people who post to the other side of this postcard are desperate for vengence, the administrators who handle the other side of this postcard are busy and rarely look here.  I dunno. heh.  Justhappenedby. Terryeo 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I look at your post and noted it, but did not deem it important enough to investigate. It is a known problem which we have more or less addressed. Fred Bauder 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please advise about procedure
A user who has been indfinitely banned from editing articles on a particular topic has, for a period of months, demonstrated bad faith and acted disruptively on the article talk pages in the banned subject area. The user has also become active in policy and guideline discussions in a manner that, it appears to me, is an attempt to modify global Wikipedia policy in order to gain advantage in arguments related to the topic from which he was banned as an editor. The user has also stated or implied that the editors who disagree with him (virtually all of the other editors who work in this subject area) are engaged in a malicious, deliberate conspiracy against fair and accurate presentation of information. He makes even larger claims about these editors as a group, implying that they are morally corrupt sociopaths. The behavior I describe above has been consistent and frequent, and it has gone on for months. The user has also recently been found to have violated his editing ban directly, by editing the articles in question under an anonymous IP. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to extend the ban to the article talk pages and the policy/guideline pages. What is the proper place and manner in which to raise this issue? BTfromLA 20:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That sort of extension would have to be approved by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So what does that mean--would a whole new ArbCom have to be applied for and convened? BTfromLA 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You would make a request in the "Requests for clarification of previous cases" section. If the committee takes notice of it, they may ask for more information, reopen the case, or simply file a motion to modify the previous case.  Your request should be relatively brief and to the point, with just a few of the most significant diffs.  ( The issue of editing while logged out is being dealt with, so focus on alleged disruptive edits to talk or policy pages)  If they want more info they will ask. Thatcher131 17:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. BTfromLA 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Could you provide a link to "Requests for clarification of previous cases"--I can't find the category. Thanks once more. BTfromLA 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just on the main WP:RFAR page, below the currently listed requests for arbitration. Thatcher131 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Virginia route page moves
As a result of consensus in the Poll, we at the WikiProject Virginia Highways (talk) request to begin moving pages to the new naming convention on Friday, September 15th. These moves are in line with what was reached in the poll, and what is agreed on on the talk page. Currently, mass page moves are a blockable offense, but with consensus after the poll, we request that the following users not be blocked for page moves: User:MPD01605, User:NE2, User:No1lakersfan, User:Gooday.1, User:Doctor Whom, and User:Rschen7754. As of now, there are no bots, but should one become available, I will notify. Thank you. --MPD01605 (T / C) 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am Vandal, pl. take action against me.
Some editors editing Hinduism feel that I am Vandal and I should be banned. I solicit pl. do it fast so that they are at peace but kindly check the discussion page to make sure that the case is not of content dispute or sock puppetry.

I shall await your message on my talk pg., if you could pl. do so. Swadhyayee 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This page is only for enforcement issues relating to past arbitration cases. For new issues you could post to the administrators noticeboard or file a request for comment. Thatcher131 11:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with LoZTP
Now, LoZTP is a video game coming out on GCN and Wii. IMO: Both the GCN and the Wii box (Which are pretty different) in the infobox. Can someone give me an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs)
 * This is not an arbitration issue. You might try request for third opinion. Thatcher131 03:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Question related to user:Zeq
Is he still on probation? Not that the article is peaceful or stable, but with this edit Zeq seems to have reignited the edit war there, and stoked it over the next few days to the point where the article needed to be fully protected (yet again). (I am not saying other editors aren't involved, but I am asking specifically about probation). Jd2718 00:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Zeq states that "Zeq is banned indefinitely from 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Palestinian exodus, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans." I see no expiration date, so unless the committee has rescinded this probation unbeknown to me, he is still subject to it. Picaroon (t) 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion related to ScienceApologist [5]

 * Aren't editors responsible for their actions under general policy and guidelines? The recent ArbCom case re-inforces this.
 * It seems to me to be a straightforward case. (1) Does WP:BOLD "Don't be reckless" have any weight at all? If so, does ScienceApologist's edit fall inside or outside of it?
 * Likewise, does the inclusion of two of ScienceApologist's statements described here, fall within, or outside of WP:V and WP:RS as described?
 * Again, are ScienceApologist's accusations against me valid criticisms or not?
 * If Admins think this is better handled via ArbCom, then that's fine. --Iantresman 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some admins think this is better solved by you not posting new supposed "violations" by ScienceApologist to this board all the time, Ian. Have you heard of the boy who cried wolf?  I guess you could call it the wolf effect... Guy (Help!) 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And some editors feel that ScienceApologists behavior has been quite outrageous for some time now, and needs to be addressed properly rather than simply ignored. Guy, I did notice your attempt to caution him, and that was appreciated, but perhaps more needs to be done.  I for one thought we where making progress, at least on the plasma cosmology page, yet it appears that is just one of the places that battles are being fought with this user.  I had not planned on giving further input in the matter, but your obviously snide remark towards Ian just above, required a proper response. -Ionized 23:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, you wrote "supposed 'violations'"; this implies no violations. This is quite easy to resolve. If we go back to my very first complaint, where I noted that ScienceApologist had said: "Ian's major problem is that he is a bean-counter, not a researcher.
 * Now, either that is a personal attack, or its not. And if it is a personal attack, then either it contravenes WP:NPA policy, or it doesn't.
 * As an example, Guy, I ask you. (a) Is this a personal attack, or not (b) Does this break policy, or not.
 * This is black or white. --Iantresman 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your view is that they are violations. Thus far I count approximately zero people who have accepted that.  There being nothing to enforce here, you appear to e wasting your time.  And ours.  Guy (Help!) 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to make this clear, you are telling me that when ScienceApologist said: "Ian's major problem is that he is a bean-counter, not a researcher., in your view, this is not a personal attack? (I'm not interested in how many people accepted it). --Iantresman 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am seriously confused by all this. You all mean to tell us that ScienceApologist is simply 'above the law' here on Wikipedia? That his very disruptive edits and intrusion into other editors attempts at improving articles, can go unchecked? The very light action taken towards him in the recent ArbCom case allows him to circumvent any further ruling against him? We must open the previous case to even have his detrimental actions considered? If that is the case, by all means, open it up again. Yes, I understand that also means a thorough investigation of all parties involved, and since I was not part of the original case, I assume that now an investigation into my edits would also become part of the re-opening. This certainly isn't abuse by Ian, if it was he would be the only person to have complained thus far, and so far I count 3 that I am aware of (2 officially, and 1 unofficially.) All we have asked is that proper blocking be placed against the editor in question. I for one am done engaging with him for a while, he has again demonstrated controversial and disruptive editing to the only article I really have any business editing here on Wikipedia. Excuse my slight change in demeanor, I had spent a few hours preparing an addition to the Plasma_cosmology page which ScienceApologist removed only 16 minutes after I had added the content, and am cooling off from a heated discussion over the disruption. I guess I'm done here, thanks for listening to my further complaint. -Ionized 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the position is as follows: you and Ian are not allowed to hijack articles for the promotion of fringe theories. Nor should you troll SA (as Ian has done, hence his temporary ban from Talk).  Everything here seems to be a case of WP:POT.  Try sticking to content, not venturing into personalities. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guy, you haven't answered my question above. Just to make this clear, are you are telling me that when ScienceApologist said: "Ian's major problem is that he is a bean-counter, not a researcher., in your view, this is not a personal attack? (I'm not interested in how many people accepted it).
 * I also don't understand why you're removed this issues to the discussion page in mid-discussion? --Iantresman 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered the first question as fully as I am going to: WP:POT. As to the second, I concur with those other admins who have stated that there is nothing to enforce.  You have now raised five complaints against SA, of which none (0) have been judged to be valid and/or actionable.  Guy (Help!) 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I ventured into personalities because I believe that ScienceApologist made a personal attack.
 * I checked WP:POT which implies that I am being uncivil. No one has provided any evidence of me being uncivil; please feel free to correct this at any time.
 * Thank you for confirming that you did not judge the personal attack to to be valid. I asked for a third opinion, which decided unanimously that they felt the statement that ScienceApologist was indeed a personal attack.
 * I can find nothing in Wiki policy in which personal attacks need validating (nor are negated by WP:POT). --Iantresman 21:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Notify the user at his or her user talk page
I went to the user talk page and had some difficulty in phrasing a proper notice regarding my Arbitration enforcement request. Deletion review has a form notification -- PAGE_NAME -- that only requires the poster to enter the page name and add the template to the user talk page. See WP:DRV. It would be helpful if Arbitration enforcement had a similar template created that may be used to comply with the Arbitration enforcement notification requirement. -- Jreferee 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, enforcement is not requested until after ordinary attempts at communication have failed. It is certainly not needed to go through RFC, mediation, etc., with a user who is already on probation in a prior case, but the fact that someone is under an arbitration remedy does not mean that editors are relieved of all expectations of communication and trying to build consensus.  If discussion has occured but not been useful, it should be simple to tell the other editor, "I'm sorry we couldn't work this out, I 'm posting this to AE for review."  Formalizing it with a template might reinforce the mistaken idea that this is the first place to bring a complaint. Thatcher131 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rights of those with sanctions?
I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them have to go? I was asked by User:Lovelight to help with a template they were working on template:911cd. I added the events of 9/11 to the template, as the collapse of the World Trade Center is directly relevant to the theory that it was done by controlled demolition. That edit was removed by a user, user:Arthur Rubin with the following message "Removing events which SHOULDN'T be in this template. Suggest that he's violating the Arbcom ruling for the 4th or 5th time.)". This involves no talk page discussion, no message on my user page to discuss it etc. So where do people with rulings have to go that gets Arbcoms attention to stop users from harrassing them? --Nuclear Zer0 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice I check my watchlist to see this gem: "Return to ct; cd template is being vandalized by Nuclear" What can be done about this? I added a template to an article, one that is directly about it, adding a Controlled Demolition template to the Controlled Demolition article, and I am being called a vandal? --Nuclear Zer0 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this is the page for it but I fully agree with what you are saying. Perhaps you could give this a hearing somewhere else as it is an issue that urgently needs addressing, IMO, as does the whole issue of users being able to use the arbcom proceeedings to harrass other users, but lets discuss it elsewhere not here, SqueakBox 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does one go is the question I guess? I would like to present my issue, but want it heard by Arbcom, as equally any user can have their complaint against me heard by Arbcom. Any suggestions? Even if I go ignored, where can i bring the issue itself to peoples attention? --Nuclear Zer0 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit copnflict) 	No I dont, and this may be the right place to ask the initial question. For you personally I would suggest emailing somebody to advocate for you. I am in a somewhat of a similar situation to you myself. Of course you could take this user to arbcom yourself but the deeper issues should probably be addressed at Village pump (policy), SqueakBox 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Under the circumstances, I am forced to come to the conclusion that you are intentionally damaging the template. There is no way the planes are relevant to controlled demolition, unless you are restricting the template to those CD theories which deny the existence of the planes.  Intentionally placing something clearly inappropriate in a template is an example of vandalism, and I see no reason to assert otherwise.  It should also be noted that you have been reported three times in the main board within the past month, and there has been no assertion other than by you that you have not violated the Arbcom ruling, but you've only been banned from one of the articles that you have violated the ruling in.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the problem with you assuming bad faith. The articles on the planes best discuss the events of what happened, specific to those buildings. The idea of controlled demolition often involves the planes hitting the buildings being used as a cover for the rigged explosives, making the articles on the planes directly relevant. This is a perfect case in point of Assuming Bad Faith based on past sanctions. You also removed the following events: September 11, 2001 attacks & Collapse of the World Trade Center, are those not relevant as well? I feel this user is following my watchlist and harrassing me. I was even accused of tenitious editing for letting them know that I complained about them. They are attempting to use my hearing as a weapon. --Nuclear Zer0 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevance is in the other direction; Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center is a logical subarticle of September 11, 2001 attacks & Collapse of the World Trade Center, and the template is logically related to the CD article, rather than articles it might be a subarticle of, so those articles are clearly inapproriate.  Hence, the only logical assumption is that you are intentionally adding inappropriate articles, or that you are so stupid as not to realize they are inappropriate.  I choose to believe the former, which is possibly treatable, as opposed to the latter, which, would require that you be banned from Wikipedia even if you are attempting to be a responsible editor.  And if you hadn't already had an ArbCom hearing, requesting that would have been my next step.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yout hostility is noted and has been reported. --Nuclear Zer0 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center is a sub-article of 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is in turn a sub-article of September 11, 2001 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh, can you please stop following my edits Tom, its getting lame. --Nuclear Zer0 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have lost the thread of this, IMO very importnat, conversation. This definitely isnt the place to discuss the details of the conflict between Nuclear and other users. Can we get back on topic please? SqueakBox 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think users with sanctions should have a place to cite harrassment. Whenever you put some sort of sanction on someone, a mark on a record, its going to create an atmosphere where people feel they can take advantage of it. While its sad that is the situation. I think its necessary that since Arbcom rulings are not suppose to be scarlet letter's and that editors with rulings are expected to be treated just as editors with them, that they have a place to seek help as well. I am sure there have been others, but you can see from the many complaints brought against me, 1 acted against (I was wrong), 9 not acted against, and some even cited as attempts to use my Arbcom as a weapon, the problem seems exist and needs a remedy. --Nuclear Zer0 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's productive to carry this conversation on at least three different pages, and this is the least-watched. Thatcher131 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Albeit probably the most relevant (of the 3 pages this conversation is spread over). Without wanting to see things spread too much further dont know if this might interest you, Nuclear; Community enforced mediation, SqueakBox 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a simpler question. User:NuclearUmpf was placed on probation. Is this a permanent status? I would have thought that probation would have expired after a designated time. The ruling doesn't specify a time limit. --Tbeatty 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't specify, then the time frame is indefinite. A few former parolees have been able to demonstrate that they have reformed and gotten their probation lifted by filing an appeal. Thatcher131 05:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I will give it time, I did mess up once with the Iraq War page fiasco. Out of the last 9 times I was complained about, its the only one that actually was correct and enforced. However I still wish there was a window, a place, for those with sanctions to report harrassment, is there? Do I have to pick an Arbcom members talk page randomly and hope they will look at the issue? And thank yuo for responding Thatcher131, last time we spoke you were in the middle of a large Arbcom case, hope this is not pulling you away. --Nuclear Zer0 05:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac
I have archived this section since it has been addressed and since Proab's first account used his real name. --Aminz 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Top or bottom
I noticed I am not the only one to miss the fact that new reports go on top. Though it does say in bold that new requests go on the top, it is somewhat buried amongst text and templates. Therefore perhaps adding a permanent subsection at the bottom that looks something like this...

New entries go up at the *TOP* of the page, not here.
...I guarantee I would not have missed that and would've posted at the top. Anynobody 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we just switch to bottom-posting, like all the other noticeboards? Picaroon (t) 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a better idea, and am kind of surprised there isn't a standard procedure for all boards. Anynobody 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Where and how
With regards to Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren and Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren - I would like to ask where should one report editors active in EE topics that have shown a recent pattern of incivil behavior.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The warning is unenforceable; ask an Arbitrator or post on WP:RFAR#Requests for clarification. The general restriction may be applied by any uninvolved admin.  It appears that if an uninvolved admin feels that an editor has a habit of making edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", that editor may be placed on notice that further such edits are subject to brief blocking.  You can use this board to request that editors be placed on notice and then request blocks, or you can contact an uninvolved admin by any other convenient route (AN/I, IRC, email, carrier pigeon). Thatcher131 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template change
I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox.  MBisanz  talk 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a fan of the new structure
I don't think making separate sections for new/answered requests helps anything. Now we know why new reports were originally filed at the top (and archived off the bottom) until someone above wanted new reports at the bottom like other noticeboards. Moving things to the answered section isn't going to stop the parties from bickering once an action has been taken but it will make more work for people. Thatcher 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem as it was is that they get resolved out of the order they are listed and when one goes looking for cases to work on, they are all out of order. Another solution is to have the bot archive them every 15 minutes or so, like at SSP, that way one doesn't have to scroll through multiple screens of a resolved cases to find one that still needs resolved. It's actually more work to leave it the way it was. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fast archiving is not appropriate here. This is not like AIV where reports can be closed after 15 minutes.  While reports are sometimes simple they may also be complex with issues of baiting and gaming.  I don't want to encourage long rambling discussion but closing off all discussion after an admin has spoken, as if we were the infallible voice from on high, is also not something that should be encouraged.  And as today's situation with 3 different sections on Tenebrae, two "open" and one "resolved" shows, this separation is a bit artificial as well.  I have returned the page to its original format.  We can once again ask that new posts be placed at the top, to make them easier to find, and I have set the bot to archive 3 days after the last time stamp rather than 7. Thatcher 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fast archiving was not my goal, not having to scroll through reams of completed cases was. The system you just reverted to doesn't work either. This system is unsat to me. You also failed to fix the directions, not that anyone reads them though. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We ended up having the Tenebrae report split over three sections and listed as both "resolved" and "active." What happened there? Thatcher 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * People don't follow directions. This method now is far from ideal too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 2¢...
 * Part of it that there were to separate instances that Skyelarke, the other sanctioned subject of the ArbCom decision, posted. The first one was not brought to Tenebrae's attention and closed before the second one was posted.
 * Tenebrae posted that he had not been informed of the first posting. the result of that was the first one was re-opened.
 * Since then the two were combined, I assume, because it looked like one issue. And to be on the safe side, all information was preserved. - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
Regarding the closure of the ScienceApologist case, I have a couple questions (being unfamiliar with the proceedings and parties here). I'm curious who the four Admins were. Also, clerk Rlevse said, "All--This is an arb enforcement page, not a debate page." But it seems like there was a debate among admins and that that was part of the process -- one which didn't lead to consensus. How does this work? Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can fairly say there was no consensus. In any case, any admin (uninvolved in the dispute of course) may respond to requests here, taking into account the discussion and acting, or declining to act, according to their own discretion and provided they are willing to defend and support their action. Thatcher 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thatcher. That's helpful. Regarding consensus, I was just referencing the comments of the closing Admin. Do you know which were the four Admins referenced in the comment by the closing Admin? TimidGuy (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to double check, but off the top of my head Rlevse, Guy, Raymond Arnitt, RG2, William Connolly, PMC and Felonious Monk are all admins. Thatcher 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I put that comment there because people were off the focus of the issue, this happens often on this page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Using the archive template
When using and , please put the top archive inside the section header, otherwise the bot will mess up the archive markings when archiving the section. Also, you can add a comment in the template itself using the pipe,. If your comment includes a url, you have to use the format. Thatcher 03:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate sections for new and resolved reports
We can try Rlevse's attempt to organize the page again. It is important, I think, not to be too hasty in marking sections as resolved or in dropping archive templates on reports. As seen at ANI multiple times, if people want to talk about an issue, dropping archive templates does not really stop discussion, nor will moving reports to a resolved section. Many times continued attempts to discuss issues will be vexatious litigation but sometimes there will be legitimate concerns, and the archive templates should not be used to foreclose legitimate discussion. Looking over the archives, you will see that the close templates were rarely used; I have begun to use them more often due to the prolixity of the Armenian-Azerbaijani editors, but they are not mandatory and should not be overused. Reports will naturally close and conversation will stop when people's concerns have been dealt with. I would suggest not forcing issues closed and moving them to "resolved" for at least a few hours after taking whatever action is taken. Thatcher 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion pertinent to arb enforcement is fine as that is what this page is for, but all too often the "discussion" isn't discussion but a continuation of the arb case, which is all too often pointless. They either violated arb restrictions or they didn't. Edits such as "please don't block him" and "it's really not a vio because he's my friend" are pointless to the purpose of this page. However, I'm not so naive to think we can ever fully stop this but we can try to corral it when necessary. I never tried to cut off legit discussion, only when it was off topic. I only started using the templates because others were. I think we should use them so we know if something is resolved or not. Or not use them at all. Not sometimes yes/sometimes no. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Template notifications of arbitration decisions
Hi. Regular editors of this page may be interested in participating in Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 21. The issue is whether is appropriate to create template messages for the notification of users about the possibility of discretionary sanctions, as provided for in various recent cases (Balkans, Palestine/Israel and I think also Armenia/Aserbaidjan). Sandstein (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Following the discussion linked to above, I've designed (probably poorly) the more generic uw-sanctions to replace uw-balkans. Input would be appreciate before I link to it from all over the place. Sandstein (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Armenians and Azeris
Querulous time-wasting on this page will get you nowhere. Our job as admins becomes impossible if every little thing we do is accompanied by a riot of protest and lengthy uproar. Despotism is a better option than anarchy for your sakes, since anarchy will lead to you all getting banned. Reasonable, short disagreement is fine. Lengthy rants are not. Ergo, you're all banned from this page for 4 days until tempers cool down. Anything urgent comes up, try my talk page. And please don't respond to this post. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)