Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 1 September 2023 (→‎Statement by Deepfriedokra: and). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Biased interpretation of the 3RR   31 August 2023 0/6/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Biased interpretation of the 3RR

Initiated by Korwinski (talk) at 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Korwinski

On August 29th I had a dispute with a User:Mellk over the edits made on page Rurik. Both of us ended up doing 4 reverts. Other party had filed a report of my violation of the 3RR and it resulted my account blocked for 24 hours. After that he despite open discussion reverted my edit again.

Seeing that, I filled the very same report and it was declined under basis: "over one day is still too long to be considered gaming, and there must be at least 4 reverts to have a 3RR violation.". I pointed out that not only 3 groups of full reverts were made + 1 in bad faith in 32 hours while I was blocked and it expired deep at night which in my opinion still falls under "just outside the 24-hour period" specified in the rules. But also upon checking edits and rules, I established that 3 full and 1 partial reverts of my edits were done by the same user in the same article in the same discussion within a span of 4 hours (1, 2, 3, 4).

In both cases my appeals to the admin were ignored, while the request was closed. Thus my current request for arbitration:

1. Please review actions of User:Bbb23 and his interpretation of the 3RR rule.

2. Given that two parties violated 3RR rule and only I was punished for that, I ask to impose the same sanction (24h ban) on the other party - User:Mellk. The reason I ask for that is because he and others base their arguments now in both discussion pages and on noticeboard against me on the fact that I was blocked, I see no other way but to establish this way the same grounds for further productive and constructive editing. As I had promised him previously, I won't make any changes to the article until its lifted and we figure out best approach in the discussion page.

Thank you Korwinski (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request was submitted here as advised by admins on noticeboard. Korwinski (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The advice you link is to ask for a third opinion, not to bring it to ArbCom. Cabayi (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says there in the lead "For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.". Korwinski (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting an ArbCom case is neither of those two things. Cabayi (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with that statement is that block was applied 5 hours after my last revert was made. For some reason you don't wish to account that time. And because of the ban I couldn't write anything and ask other editor to stick with the open discussion instead of starting another edit war. User saw that and acted upon it. Which he did the next time he was online, even before going back to the discussion. My question here is why "discretion" in this case goes one side despite other side clearly acting in bad faith by doing 4th revert and starting new edit war? Korwinski (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case administrator didn't agree that my request matched 3RR, he could have re-qualified it or at least issued a warning. Rules say: Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. At this point admin that had issued initial block confirms "4th revert outside of 24 hours can be considered edit warring". Given that he is already involved in this situation, he could have at very least issued a warning. Did he do that yesterday or now? Nope. So what kind of discretion is that? All I see is a tolerance of actions that slightly bypass 3RR rule.
Korwinski (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

I have nothing to say unless an arbitrator has a question. If so, although I will keep this page on my watchlist, it'd be nice if you pinged me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to say one other thing - CaptainEek, if the filer's complaint should go anywhere, the best venue would be WT:EW. This requires a huge stretch for it to be about user (or in this case administrator) misconduct. It is simply about the interpretation of the edit-warring policy. In the past I've seen questions like this posted to the policy Talk page from aggrieved users who believe that an administrator's interpretation of policy was incorrect. In any event, I don't think you should encourage the filer, who is obviously angry at an interpretation of policy that led to a ruling they didn't like, to take this to ANI as it's just not the right place.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ToBeFree

Administrators are never required to use their tools. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aoidh

I don't think this is anywhere near the level of what ArbCom would need to be involved with, as the only issue here is that the filer Korwinski does not agree with an administrator using their discretion in determining what is and is not actionable edit warring, something well within an administrator's scope. I am the administrator that responded to the intial report and blocked Korwinski for 24 hours for 3RR. I wasn't going to comment here but did want to point out one inaccuracy in Korwinski's statement above where they say Mellk made their last revert in bad faith in 32 hours while I was blocked. Korwinski's block had already expired when this edit was made. Korwinski also states that I established that 3 full and 1 partial reverts of my edits were done ... within a span of 4 hours however those are consecutive edits which together count as one revert (from WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert). What counts as just outside the 24-hour period is purposefully undefined and up to administrative discretion for various reasons, and there is no issue with Bbb23 using that discretion to say that a fourth edit 32.25 hours after the third is not "just outside" of that 24 hour period. - Aoidh (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Korwinski: responding to this comment, 3RR violations are not detected automatically, it takes time to have a report filed and then for an administrator to review said report, that's why you were not blocked immediately but after some time; that is a normal aspect of WP:ANEW. When you say And because of the ban I couldn't write anything and ask other editor to stick with the open discussion instead of starting another edit war I have to again point out that no edits were made to the article when you were blocked (not to nitpick but there is a difference between being blocked and being banned). The difference between your reverts and Mellk's reverts is that yours unambiguously violated 3RR by making 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. 3RR is a bright-line rule with a clear definition, which your edits clearly fell under. Mellk's 4th revert outside of 24 hours can be considered edit warring, but is not a 3RR violation (From WP:3RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, emphasis added). Whether that was "just outside" and whether that revert would be considered "edit warring" is discretionary and the reviewing administrator did nothing wrong by using their discretion in a way that you disagree with. Respectfully, I do not intend to respond to any further comments as I feel the points I wanted to make were made. - Aoidh (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

I agree with Bbb23 that this dispute needs/needed to be threshed out at WT:EW as the first step.. I also think @Korwinski: would benefit from a fuller understanding of WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think WT:EW first, then perhaps WP:AN or WP:AARV. The complaint is that an admin did not block the user filer was in dispute with. This complaint in and of itself falls flat. As Aoidh has said, the decision was well within admin discretion. There was no tool abuse, so there is nothing to bring to AN. (or here) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Korwinski)

ArbCom has been established to hear cases that the community cannot resolve, either because there is no community process (for the desysopping of administrators), or because community discussion has failed (e.g., the community discussion has become a great monster with tentacles. This is a block review request, and block reviews are held at WP:AARV or WP:ANI or WP:AN. This does not appear to be a complaint of administrator abuse, but administrator abuse is discussed at WP:ANI or WP:AN before it is kicked to ArbCom. I have not looked in detail at the merits of the block or the non-block, but the filing editor was edit-warring. Maybe Wikipedia should institute punitive blocks after the fact of an edit war, and maybe it shouldn't, but a request to block the other editor is a request for a punitive block. I disagree with other editors who say that this is a case for the edit-warring noticeboard, but this is (ugh) a case for WP:AN, or to be swept under the rug. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ad Orientem

Per above. Wrong venue. Premature. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Biased interpretation of the 3RR: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Biased interpretation of the 3RR: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1173346142"