Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 | Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. All discussion about specific enforcement requests should be routed through the main noticeboard or other relevant pages for discussion. Discussion about the committee in general should go to a wider audience at WT:AC or WT:ACN.
→ Please click here to start a new topic. ← |
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Note about these archives In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Could someone copy over an appeal
[edit]It's going to be some time before I'm able to access a computer with a keyboard, so I would be exceedingly appreciative if someone could copy over this appeal and handle all the templates. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, I copied it over, hope I did it correctly. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. If it's messed up I'm sure someone will fix it, but it doesn't look messed up at a glance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
A new editor, Martian Manhunter 1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been, in my opinion, whitewashing the article on McEntee. He made a bunch of edits I thought were wrong, I reverted him. I informed him the article was a contentious topic [1]. He carried on. I just reverted him again. Do with this what you will.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there were no edits after the notification. I've watchlisted the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dan Murphy, pinging because I moved this section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Indeffed them and their sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Background to POV-pushing AE cases
[edit]While there is an ARCA request that these may be in the scope of, I'm opening enforcement requests here for three reasons:
- It remains unclear whether the ARCA request will turn into a case, and even if it does due to the length of time it has taken I will no longer be available to participate. (If a case does proceed with me as a party, I will provide details to ArbCom to demonstrate that it is not ANI flu)
- One of the editors is not being considered as a party for that case
- I believe the evidence here is sufficiently straightforward that AE may be able to deal with it; if they can, that should simplify any potential ArbCom case
BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Admin input
[edit]Something that has been on my mind for quite a while is that other than the shit show I've just started there's no way for admins working arbitration enforcement to get input from other admins without either discussing off-wiki or starting this kind of clusterfuck. While there are some admins that I chat with off-wiki that leads to a selection bias, and still provides a narrow point of view. I've boiled my noodle off and on for months about this, and I can't come up with a solution that doesn't pose it's own issues.
Looking for input in a public forum leads to exactly what we're seeing now, but at least there's transparency. It doesn't make it easy for admins to have frank discussions about behavior and interpretations. It also turns into yet another forum for people to argue.
A limited access mailing list is one way, but having a big admin-only off-wiki mailing list isn't going to make anyone more comfortable with admins and would be vulnerable to leaks. An IRC or discord channel has the same issue. Might as well just throw on a robe and start a cabal.
I don't know if there's any solution, or if the way it is now it's the best we can do with our system. I just figured I'd share some of my thoughts and see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- The simple solution would be to have discussions initiated by admins in their role as an uninvolved admin be designated as "admin-only", with the only regular editors being allowed to contribute being those whose behavior is being discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ways to get admin input without an AE filing:
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at Talk:AE
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at WP:AN
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at WP:ARCA
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at the relevant policy talk page
- saying "I think this is a a policy vio" at the editor's user talk page, or on the page where the policy vio happened (in this case, article talk page)
- waiting to see if someone else raises it
- Levivich (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)