Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. 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.
Wikipedia has a guideline against editors who seek to use Wikipedia to
Right Great Wrongs, in contravention of
the neutral point of view policy. But I think that Wikipedia also needs an essay about editors who seek to
Right Small Wrongs that they think have been done to them. Within the past two weeks, one editor has been banned for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of a block (for restoring troll posts), and another editor has been indefinitely blocked for an overly persistent campaign to right what they see as a small wrong of the deletion of off-topic material. I need to to file my taxes, and then will be traveling, or I would start the essay.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 16:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What an interesting idea. I look forward to reading your essay.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Robert McClenon thanks for the link. I think you've got a really good point here. One observation I would make is that some RSW people think they are actually RGW people. This is especially true for people who feel like they were unfairly blocked. I will also confess that reading this made me want to write a "Right small wrongs" essay of my own which would focus on the spirit of BOLD editing and SOFIXIT but the idea there is very different than the one you're making.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This case request is resolved by motion as follows:
Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.
Enacted –
firefly (
t ·
c ) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support
As proposer and per my comments above.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this is needed. We don't need a full case unless someone posts concerns about specific users.
Z1720 (
talk) 16:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Conduct in deletion-related editing amendment request
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing was declined. In that amendment request, I raised concerns about
TenPoundHammer's blank-and-redirects (BLARs) and
asked whether to request a BLAR topic ban in a separate amendment request. I did not receive an answer to that question. @
Guerillero: (
link), @
Firefly: (
link), and @
Aoidh: (
link) mentioned concerns about the redirect in opposing the relaxing of the topic ban, while @
Primefac: (
link) had "no major concerns" about the redirects. Did the Arbitration Committee consider the BLAR topic ban request and decide against it? I would like advice about whether to file a separate amendment request for the BLAR topic ban. I considered asking the community to review the redirect issue but have not because this is a conduct dispute that previously reached arbitration.
Cunard (
talk) 22:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
And if a topic ban would not fly, could a "this-many-per-day" restriction be a possibility?
BOZ (
talk) 00:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I never received a reply to
my query about whether the redirects were causing further issues, which is why I made the statement you link to above. If you think that TPH should be restricted from BLAR, you should start a discussion in the usual places. Personally speaking, however, nothing in your statement indicated that the "disruptive" clauses of
WP:ATD-R or
WP:BLAR have been met, and in fact I find the response in
the thread you referenced in your statement to be an indication that TPH isn't going to be disruptive if their redirects are reverted. You might not like that it is being done, but I am not seeing the same behavioural and conduct issues in their actions that led to the original topic bans.
Primefac (
talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The disruptive editing does not take place after the redirects are reverted. The disruptive editing takes place when TenPoundHammer continues to redirects articles on notable topics even after being asked to stop. This violates
Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Does "you should start a discussion in the usual places" include
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? Or did the Arbitration Committee already decide against imposing a BLAR topic ban request in the recently closed amendment request?
Cunard (
talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I cannot speak for the Committee, but I personally do not see this as an issue requiring us to weigh in at this point in time.
Primefac (
talk) 08:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand that you do not view TenPoundHammer's BLARs as problematic, but I thank you for responding to my questions. I pinged several arbitrators who mentioned concerns about the BLARs when opposing the relaxing of the topic ban. I would like to hear their perspectives regarding whether filing a separate amendment request would be considered a duplicate of
the recently declined amendment request. It would answer why arbitrators did not propose a BLAR topic ban there (were the BLARs not considered problematic enough, was a topic ban amendment request not the right venue for proposing expanding the sanctions, or were there other reasons).
Cunard (
talk) 08:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I personally think it should be a separate amendment, or perhaps a discussion first at AN/I.
BOZ (
talk) 12:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I am going to give you mixed feedback here. I had not looked deeply into the evidence you presented at the ARCA as I had not voted and was not planning to vote for the motion being considered. I had presumed that it might be the kinds of "deeply researched" sources you often present at AfD. I have now looked at the sources and they're definitely not that but are instead are easily findable quality reliable sources. So I am personally troubled and would consider further sanctions/restrictions if asked at ARCA. However, I can't help but wonder based on the feedback of
Primefac above that other arbs who were paying more close attention don't see it as much of a problem as I do.
Barkeep49 (
talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for reviewing the evidence. This gives me an indication that a topic ban amendment request would not be a duplicate. I've
posted a new amendment request.
Cunard (
talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply