Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:34, 17 January 2011 editJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 editsm →Comment by Jack Merridew: freshen permalink← Previous edit Revision as of 21:03, 18 January 2011 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits Another climate change request (involving WP:Activist)Next edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} = = {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}} <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}
== Request for clarification: ] (]) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Tony Sidaway}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|ZuluPapa5}}
*{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Tony Sidaway ===
The essay ] was started last August by now topic-banned editor Cla68 (), evidently as a result of his experiences editing articles on climate change, although it is relevant to other controversial topics. In November it survived a deletion discussion (]).

In this arbitration case Cla68 and several other editors, including the listed parties ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley, were found to have engaged in "battlefield conduct" with respect to the topic of climate change, and subject to the following restriction:
: '' Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Misplaced Pages particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Misplaced Pages, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.''

At first sight the recent edits by ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley at that essay seem to fall under clause (iii) and (iv).

A discussion involving Doc glasgow, , went in the direction of letting the parties squabble on an essay because it's of little consequence. That's arguable but the activity here seems to suggest that the involved editors aren't letting this matter go.

I want to solicit arbitrator comments on this matter, particularly comments about the likely outcome of any future review of the topic bans, in view of deliberate engagement in this topic. Also any decision to take this to ] (an act that has had mixed results in the past) would be strongly influenced by arbitrator consensus. --] 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===

----
== Request for clarification: ] == == Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC) '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:03, 18 January 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
] none none 18 January 2011
] none none 13 January 2011
] none none 8 January 2011
] none none 3 January 2011
] none none 24 December 2010
Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change (Misplaced Pages:Activist)

Initiated by TS at 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Tony Sidaway

The essay Misplaced Pages:Activist was started last August by now topic-banned editor Cla68 (see early revision), evidently as a result of his experiences editing articles on climate change, although it is relevant to other controversial topics. In November it survived a deletion discussion (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist).

In this arbitration case Cla68 and several other editors, including the listed parties ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley, were found to have engaged in "battlefield conduct" with respect to the topic of climate change, and subject to the following restriction:

Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Misplaced Pages particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Misplaced Pages, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.

At first sight the recent edits by ZuluPapa5 and William M. Connolley at that essay seem to fall under clause (iii) and (iv).

A discussion involving Doc glasgow, "since when did essays need references", went in the direction of letting the parties squabble on an essay because it's of little consequence. That's arguable but the activity here seems to suggest that the involved editors aren't letting this matter go.

I want to solicit arbitrator comments on this matter, particularly comments about the likely outcome of any future review of the topic bans, in view of deliberate engagement in this topic. Also any decision to take this to WP:AE (an act that has had mixed results in the past) would be strongly influenced by arbitrator consensus. --TS 21:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: User: Marknutley

Initiated by Stephan Schulz (talk) at 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Stephan Schulz

User:Marknutley has been indef blocked by FloNight in early November 2010 in connection with WP:ARBCC topic bans. She instructed him to appeal to ArbCom for unblocking. On appeal, he had been told to wait for the new committee, and has received no feedback to his new request yet. I have no particular opinion on whether an unblock is a good idea or not, but I think it's unfair to let him hang out without any acknowledgement. ArbCom owes him at least an answer.

Statement by Petri Krohn

Mark's anonymous edits can most likely be found here: User:Petri Krohn/Pink proxy. There are however at least two other users using the same proxy farm. There was a related sock puppet investigation somewhere (now deleted). All the IPs have since been blocked as known and proven proxies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether or not Mark should be unblocked, but as far as I know, there is nothing tying him to the so-called "pink proxies". I seem to remember he was indeffed for one edit as an anon from his own IP while he was blocked, but I may be wrong. --Sander Säde 10:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason for the indefinite block is not clearly documented, but I believe this was the reason. That administrator forgot to extend the block to indefinite, a mistake which was quickly corrected by another admin. HeyMid (contribs) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

User:Marknutley was been indef blocked by me after contacting him privately with my concerns about violations of our multiple account policy and he chose to be blocked rather than continue the discussion about the situation at that time. Before he was blocked the matter was also reviewed on the Functionaries mailing list.

Later Mark changed his mind and asked for his situation to be reviewed. It needs to be done by arbcom because it involves his use of various ip that should not be discussed on site.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Ban appeal cases are not usually quick, especially those involving private data; discussion of this one is still on-going. I would suggest patience is the best option here or Marknutley could always contact ArbCom directly if he would like an update - he's not done so since his initial request. It's only been 10 days at this point and there's quite a few new Arbs who need to review the original information from last year. Shell 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As Shell notes, this is currently being discussed and should be addressed fairly soon. –xeno 14:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 01:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Timotheus Canens

It has recently come to my attention that Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) has been operating, and editing from, the account Gold Hat (talk · contribs), in apparent contradiction with the terms of the 2009 amended unban motion ("User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process"). When I asked him about it, he claims that arbcom is aware of the Gold Hat (talk · contribs) account and has no issue with it. Can the committee confirm this, and if so, make suitable amendments to the restrictions? T. Canens (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Roger: The restriction at issue clearly does not distinguish between disclosed and undisclosed accounts (otherwise there would be no need for the special provision for a bot). IMO it's not very helpful to call the violation "technical" simply because no harm was done. By analogy, we routinely block users editing in violation of a ban (site or topic) even if the contributions are good.

My point is that, if the committee is okay with these accounts (and I certainly perceive no problem with the edits of Gold Hat et al.), then it should either lift the restriction entirely or amend it to only prohibit illegitimate uses (though isn't that covered by WP:SOCK anyway?). But it isn't healthy to silently ignore restrictions that are still on the books. How are administrators supposed to figure out what restrictions should be enforced and what should be ignored? T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Coren: Ah, the elusive "spirit" again. A nice pattern, indeed:
  1. Arbcom, apparently intending to prohibit only X, passes a broadly-worded restriction whose wording prohibits X and Y.
  2. The user does Y, and an admin takes enforcement action because, after all, the restriction does prohibit Y.
  3. The enforcing admin gets dragged before arbcom and berated for "overreaction" or "ignoring the spirit" or whatever by arbs.
  4. Rinse, repeat.
No wonder so few admins do AE work any more. They really have to be masochistic to participate in such a system. Any admin enforcing an arbcom decision has to start at the words in that decision. There is no other place they can start at. When those words become so malleable that "one account X only" can mean "any number of accounts, as long as they are all declared", would it be surprising that people refuse to take the speaker seriously?

AE cases are bad enough when admins are actually able to rely on what arbcom wrote, and even then we have protracted threads with massive amounts of wikilawyering which no admin wants to close; but at least you have the words, and they can only mean a small number of things. When even arbcom's words cannot be relied upon, all you will get is exponential amounts of wikilawyering over what the "spirit" of a restriction is. Is the "spirit" of a topic ban to get the editor to completely disengage from a topic, or is it to prevent unproductive/tendentious editing only? Is the "spirit" a one-way rachet, so that it will only curtail the wording of a restriction, and not expand it? When admins deviate from the terms of a restriction to better serve its "spirit", they will be "biased" and perhaps "involved"; when they adhere to the way a restriction is worded, they will be "overreacting", and "biased" too.

The perhaps inconvenient fact is that AE admins are not responsible for fixing arbcom's oversights. If you think Jack's restriction has outlived its purpose (and I tend to agree), then lift it. If you think it should remain but was unfortunately worded, then amend it. As far as I know, Special:ReadMind does not exist, or even the more specialized Special:ReadMindOfArbCom. Arbcom communicates its instructions to the admins enforcing its decision with its words. It is not too much to ask those words to be something that admins can actually rely upon. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jack Merridew

{{sigh}} I said arbs, not all of ArbCom. This *has* been discussed with some arbs and last I was told, by John, was wait until mid-Feb. Guess not. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gold Hat's first edit was to an Arb's toy account, and that led to an email thread. Check your arb-list archives from late last July. I've also directly informed John via email. Look at Gold Hat's edits; he (ok, *I*) have had talks mostly with admins, 'crat's and admins with it. There are also assorted recent emails with a number of arbs about fulling lifting these restrictions. Also, I'm traveling, and am mostly focused off-wiki. Ask John and Cas about that. They know that story, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The recent email thread is named "Jack as the Beast". That one does not discuss Gold Hat, but is about what's next. It includes seven arbs and five non-arb admins, including a WMF-staffer ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And I'm funny ;)
Cheers, Gold Hat aka david 04:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The ID Gold Hat has been rotating on my user page for a long time; it's also in User:Jack Merridew/Sock drawer, which is transcluded there, for all to see. It was created *by* my Jack account and appears in the usual log. Gotta go; off, Jack Merridew 06:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Roger, I'll email you, later today; I've already pinged Shell. And I'll work on being funnier, ok?

I'm fine with Tim having brought this here; the timing re my RL, is unfortunate, but he wouldn't have known that. His intent, methinks, is to clear this old mess up. I've said, many, many times, to earlier incarnations of this committee, to individual arbs, and to the wider community: More dispute resolution, less dispute prolongation. Obviously, I endorse Ralph's view; he understands me. I didn't canvas him or contact him over this, either.

So, another year of restrictions has passed, I've not been blocked, and I'm pretty well connected with many <del>of the Biguns</del><ins>appropriate advisers</ins> on this site. The point of the vids was illustrative; I know that piece very well, read it long ago; was *there* the night the barricade hydraulics locked-up (during the NYC previews). Restrictions in perpetuity are inappropriate; please lift them all. To not do so, makes me a target, a perpetual second-class editor, which is punitive, not preventative. <irony>The edit that seems to have brought this to Tim's attention, was me supporting the lifting of another reformed user's editing restrictions.</irony>

Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Coren && Roger; we swapped Salmonidae of appropriate scale ;)

@Tim, I understand where you're coming from. This is ancient baggage. It's served as a honeypot, which has been useful. Enough. Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

Jack's ban was reviewed in November 2008 at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and I'd recommend reading the discussion as background.

The result was that on 9 December 2008 Jack's ban was lifted subject to 8 conditions.

The motion to amend Jack's 2008 unban motion was agreed in December 2009, reducing the conditions to three, plus his agreement to them (which he agreed on 11 December 2009):

  1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
  2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
  3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

The third condition applies to all editors. The second condition has now certainly been met (at least in spirit). Jack has around 170 talk page watchers, and his talk page is often used as a "reference desk" for technical help – which Jack is always happy to give, as anyone can see from viewing it. I submit that Jack knows whom he can turn to to seek advice, and there is no reason remaining for any restriction on his editing.

Finally, that leaves the restriction to editing from only one named account. I know Jack has been considering a name change, to leave behind the baggage of the Lord of the Flies avatar, and the restriction would strictly need amendment to allow that to happen. Nevertheless, the important point is that Jack has spent the two years since his unblock contributing constructively and collaboratively. I see no suggestion that he is in any way likely to return to abusive sockpuppetry, and the two alternative accounts Gold Hat and Merridew have trivial contributions and are linked to Jack Merridew. Gold Hat has only made comments at places such as his own talk page, where the viewers are well aware that it's Jack – and who enjoy the mild humour resulting. If you like, it's a kind of echo of one of Jack's wiki-friends, Bishonen, who keeps a stable of humorous puppets to lighten people's wiki-lives.

I'd ask ArbCom to review Jack's contributions and interactions with other users, and to consider whether they would agree that unnecessary restrictions do no more than create a "second-class" user, drawing criticism for actions that would be considered harmless when done by another user. The current restriction is now over a year old, and I'd suggest that it's time to remove it. --RexxS (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor clarification
@Shell – The initial restriction placed over two years ago (one of the 8 restrictions from December 2008). HTH. --RexxS (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

  • I endorse what was written by RexxS above to lift the remaining restrictions. My interactions with Jack have been nothing but pleasant. Let's go with the spirit of the revised restrictions (and not the strict wording) - the quaint Gold Hat account is strictly frivolous and provides welcome amusement. --Ohconfucius 06:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh... "quaint" and "frivolous". How about this: every registered editor is hereby allowed to create several "joke" accounts apiece, flooding the wiki with "fake" users that have to be redirected to the actual owners to avoid any "confusion". That would be awesome!: and oh so conducive to building the wiki in a productive manner. "Inside jokes" about how every admin has socks, and how "n00bs" have no clue. "Biguns" and "littluns": "Us vs. Them". Want to shed the "Lord of the Flies" imagery? Close this "fekkin" thread already. And anyone who remotely suggests that T.Canens should actually be chastised for bringing this up needs a serious trout walloping upside the head. Nothing is going to happen here, so end it. Have mercy... Doc talk 07:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • First I've heard of any such thing. Jack Merridew, could you clarify what you're referring to? Shell 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The mailing list is notoriously un-searchable, but I'll see what I can do there - it doesn't seem to have made it to the "list of alternate accounts we know about", but that does happen some times. Regardless though, we have a long history of allowing humorous alternate accounts - I believe the initial restriction was due to past inappropriate sockpuppetry, which doesn't appear to have reoccurred in the year since the restriction was put in place. Shell 05:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Follow up to Timotheus Canens: Working in any kind of dispute resolution can be frustrating at the best of times. Sometimes though too much insistence on following the letter of the law can cause someone to miss the point of a policy/guideline/restriction. While policies have been able to grow over the years to give examples of times where thoughtful application is important (exceptions to the 3RR for vandalism and later for BLP), ArbCom restrictions tend to be very brief and somewhat stuck in the moment; understanding that moment and what the restriction was meant to prevent tends to be an important part of enforcing the restriction. Restrictions limiting an editor to one account are about stopping a problem whether it's sneaky sockpuppetry or logging out to avoid scrutiny - an account that clearly indicates its origin and isn't used nefariously doesn't really fall into the realm of what the restriction is meant to prohibit.

        It is a lot of work to take an in depth look at cases and understand what the restrictions are and why they are there; I deeply respect the admins who work at AE because of the time and effort they choose to put in to the project. I certainly don't think we'd expect them to develop mind reading on top of everything; I'm sure that anyone on ArbCom would be happy to answer questions about any cases or restrictions when they come up whether it's a formal request here or simply catching on of us in email/IM/IRC. Shell 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • A couple of observations.

    First (mostly to Timotheus Canens), I see that the Gold Hat has been linked, via a soft redirect, to the main account since the day of the account's creation. So while there may be a technical breach of the restrictions, and while it may not have been appropriate to create the second account, it was clearly not created to deceive or evade sanctions or for a similar nefarious purpose (the intention of the restriction in this instance).

    Second (mostly to Jack Merridew), it seems to me an essential requirement of humorous accounts that the contributions are funny. Absent guidelines clarifying whether faintly droll fully meets this requirement, I am unable to recommend appropriate sizes and weights of applicable Salmonidae. However, as content issues such as this are essentially the community's bailiwick, not ArbCom's, I shall say no more.  Roger 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

    • @Timotheus Canens: thanks for the comments. I understand your frustration about the wording of sanctions and restrictions. Because it is difficult to foresee all the permutations, and to avoid decisions becoming too legalistic, the committee has traditionally written restrictions concisely and left interpretation down to the community. In the light of recent events, perhaps we need to review this. In any case, I would not criticse an administrator for acting on a good faith interpretation. All that said, I would probably support removal of the restrictions on Jack Merridew altogether at this point and will offer a motion if this view appears to have consensus.  Roger 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Recuse John Vandenberg 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A clearly identified "joke" account almost certainly does not violate the spirit of the restriction, which is about sockpuppetry. I'm not sure how wise it might have been to create the account, but I certainly think that viewing it as a breach of the restriction is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction. — Coren  16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Recuse. I'll add a statement later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Puzzled. I've not heard of this, but then, my tenure as an Arb is less than two weeks at this point, so I'm not commenting on the substance of the issue yet. T. Canens's point is well taken, however. At the very least, an enforcement action made in good faith based on the common-sense reading of a sanction should not result in any negative consequences for the admin making that call--the fault in such a disconnect probably lies with Arbcom, for one of several reasons, rather than the admin taking enforcement action. It's Arbcom's job to lift sanctions in a timely manner when they're no longer relevant or helping build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:ARBMAC

Initiated by WhiteWriter at 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by WhiteWriter

Question about clarification of 1RR regarding Kosovo article, imposed in august 2009 by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs).

This happened:

As we didnt get agreement about finishing separation, Alinor reverted status quo.

Without question who is guilty, who is not (that is pointless not, i think), my question is, what exactly is 1RR? First edit by Alinor, implementation of talk page RfC was, by some, just a revert, while for some others new edit, followed the talk page. We must see what can be done regarding this, and with that agreement, similar problems may be excluded in the future. With this flammable page, clarification will be very useful. So, what exactly is 1rr on Kosovo page? Should any entry with similar historic content be regarded as revert? Now new editors can know about that? Is this 1ER (1 edit restriction) instead on 1RR per week? All of this should have answer. All best, and, by the way, Happy New Year! :) --WhiteWriter 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by ZjarriRrethues


  • There is a consensus which hasn't been overturned since July 2010 and a few hours after he made the second revert, one of the regular Kosovo editors restored that consensus because there was no consensus about reverting to a pre-July infobox version or even a discussion about it.. Alinor didn't implement any agreement/agree status quo/consensus but reverted to a version he considered correct, which caused other users to suggest reporting him to AE. As Alinor kept saying when he was making the reverts consensus changes, however, it doesn't change by reverting but through discussion.


  • As the one who started this request for clarification WhiteWriter should bring difs that show there was an agreement for Alinor's reverts as this supposed agreement WhiteWriter keeps insisting on mentioning to justify Alinor's reverts isn't on the article's talkpage.

--— ZjarriRrethues —  20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Alinor

  • I have explained my position here: User_talk:Alinor#1RR_violation_on_Kosovo.
  • The problem is that ZjarriRrethues continues to refer to a 26 hours discussion back in July 2010 that didn't involve wide input and didn't present all possible alternatives (they made an agree/disagree statements on only 2 options out of 7). As WhiteWriter explains and the RFC recently concluded shows there is no consensus for the ZjarriRrethues supported changes. I also find them as flawed for other-than-procedural reasons (the result is misleading for readers - and this was the reason I got involved in the first place - I was misled myself) - as explained in my post on my talk page.
  • I was blocked for two edits that I made - first I restored the status quo before the ZjarriRrethues-supported-changes (that got implemented after a 26 hour discussion); second - after his revert I reverted back to the status quo. The first edit was result of the lack of consensus for the ZjarriRrethues supported changes (implemented 5 months ago and under discussion since that moment - I don't know if restoring previous status quo falls inside the 1 week 1RR rules). Alinor (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that (if there is technical possibility) this block should be deleted from my block history - of course if the result of this procedure here is that DS made a mistake by blocking me in the first place. Alinor (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Without comment on the wider issue, Alinor's first edit of 31 Dec 2010 represents a reversion of the article to 05:06, 23 July 2010 (in terms of number of infoboxen), and Alinor's second edit of 31 Dec 2010 is a repetition of that revert. If a user enters some entirely new content onto a page, someone else undoes it, and the initial user reverts them - that is only one revert because the initial edit was novel (and not essentially a revert to a prior state of the article). This does not seem to be the case here. –xeno 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Xeno's hit the nail on the head here; there were two reverts in this instance (i.e. it doesn't matter that one was a revert to something long ago). Shell 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Xeno and Shell are correct in their interpretation of the word "revert"; a change to any prior state of an article constitutes a revert. (The main caveat is that the edit must have been made knowing it was a change back to a prior state: one can imagine an editor making a change without realizing that he or she is in fact reinventing an earlier version of the wheel.) I do not see that any clarification of our prior decision is required here. That being said, for what it is is worth (which may be little), in this instance if I were the enforcing administrator I would likely have given a warning rather than a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the arbitrators above; there were two reverts. John Vandenberg 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I see two reverts as well. Strict guidelines for these pages have been instituted as a last resort after protracted disputes, and great care is needed for this reason. I am sorry about the blemish on your block record but I am not sure there is anything we can do about it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Initiated by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) at 20:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Confusion has arisen with regard to the intent of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Use_of_blogs_and_self-published_sources. Discussion (see here) centers on whether the provision regarding blogs and other self-published sources is meant to apply solely to BLPs (and especially to BLPs of individuals taking a contrarian perspective on the issue) or whether it was meant to apply more broadly. In the interest of disclosure my own view is the former; i.e., Arbcom's intent was to prohibit use of blogs in BLPs rather than to discourage the use of blogs more generally. Clarification of the Committee's intent would be helpful in keeping the situation from becoming more heated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur (strongly) in User talk:Scott MacDonald's comment below regarding scope. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Query: I'm new to clarification requests. Will there be a bottom-line closing statement from the committee, or will things just sort of die out after arbitrators give their individual views? Responses so far have differed such that the situation has not been, in a word, "clarified."

To expand on this a bit: Several have commented on the use of self-published sources in BLPs. The request here does not center around use of blogs (or other self-published sources) in BLP material. That's not to be done; it's clear; we get that (or should get it). The need for clarification regards restrictions on the use of blogs and other low-rank sources on topics outside of BLP material. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald

I've no interest in Climate Change, but if this is to be limited to BLP (and I take no view on that), then I'm sure arbcom and Short Brigade would agree that it should be "BLP material" rather than simply BLPs. This is an important point, but should not be contentious.--Scott Mac 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ron Cram

I wrote the paragraph which has become the subject of contention. I did so with knowledge of the arbcom ruling Boris cited and in the belief the paragraph I wrote complies with the ruling. In my view, the intent of the ruling is clear - it is to make certain that blogs are not used in situations in which they might not be reliable sources. Blogs would typically be considered reliable when speaking about the blog proprietor and so would most typically only be used in articles about the blog or the blog proprietor. The ruling does not say this is the "only" use. Some blogs are written by notable people. Such is the case here. Roger A. Pielke is an ISI highly-cited climatologist. As the proprietor of the blog, there is no question the comments he has written reliably reflect his opinion. It is Misplaced Pages's policy that a blog post, even by as famous and well-respected researcher as Pielke, should not be considered a reliable source on the science itself. Fair enough. After all, there are qualified experts on both sides. But there is no way anyone can say Pielke's blog is not a reliable source for Pielke's opinion regarding his criticism of the IPCC. It is an unreasonable position for anyone to take.RonCram (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to give arbiters feedback regarding the helpfulness of their comments. So far, Jclemons comment has been the most helpful and applicable to the situation. The criticism being contested is from Roger A. Pielke, taken from his blog. It is criticism of an organization, not an individual, so comments about BLP are not applicable to this request for clarification. Finally, the citing of WP:SELFPUB was helpful because I had not seen it before and clarifying because it directly applies. Actually, WP:BLOGS (just above SELPUB) also applies since Pielke is an established expert in the field. RonCram (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098

I'm glad I voted for Jclemens. He's one of the few who knows "teh rulz" these days. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

In addition to WP:SELFPUB, see WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". --JN466 17:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Blogs, self-published materials, and the like are to be used as sources with great caution, especially when better sources are available, and especially in highly contentious topic areas, of which Climate change is the preeminent example for 2010. Blogs are particularly disfavored as sourcesw where their contents are negative comments about individuals. As Scott MacDonald observes, it is inappropriate to post an inadequately sourced negative statement about a living person (or anyone, really) in any article, whether or not the article is the BLP on the person. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I can agree that a blog that is undisputedly written by one individual can be a reliable source in defining the stated views of that individual (as of the date of the post in question). A separate question is whether a view expressed only on a blog is sufficient important to warrant inclusion in an article; as to that, as much else, context is all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The short of it is "No, this applies everywhere". This is a straightforward interpretation of both policy and practice regarding careful sourcing; the point is that it's all the more important to get things right in BLPs, not that subpar sources are acceptable elsewhere. Primary sources of the sort are difficult to use right, and of very limited scope, because they are not reliable sources. — Coren  00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed with those above, except I take a harder line. Blogs, self-published materials and the like are not usable sources, ESPECIALLY in highly contentious topic areas. SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ... Except under the limited, narrow conditions of WP:SELFPUB, of course. That shouldn't normally be necessary to say, but the fact is, blogs can be useful in certain cases, such as to illustrate a BLP subject's own views, as expressed on his or her self-authored blog. Note that each of the five conditions of WP:SELFPUB must be met in order for the usage of a blog to be acceptable. To amplify Newyorkbrad's comment, I'm uncertain how a blog containing a negative statement about another person could pass point 2, "does not involve claims about third parties". (arb-elect, as of this point ...) Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with what Guettarda said here: "The ruling says "typically articles about the blog or source itself here". That means you could use Pielke's blog in Pielke's bio, or in an article about Pielke's blog. This is neither of those." I also agree with the point made by Arthur Rubin that the IPCC is not a BLP individual. Criticisms of organisations are a valid topic for articles about those organisations, but the criticisms need to be reliably sourced. Really, though, at the end of the day, editors working on these articles should be able to resolve differences like this without needing clarification from ArbCom. Was there not a noticeboard that you could have gone to first - one that deals with self-published sources, such as the WP:RSN? That would, I suppose, only work if those asking for clarification there held their tongue and didn't all pile in to repeat what they had said on the article talk page. Agree on the article talk page on a suitable phrasing for the question, ask the question, and then step back and let others have room to give their opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In reply to Boris, it's my understanding that if the arbs conclude that a motion is necessary, then a motion is voted on. Otherwise, if arbs conclude that a motion is unnecessary, the arbs request the clerks archive the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • SBHB: I think if you glue together the bits here, the general feeling is (as per Coren) we believe policy should be interpreted as "this applies everywhere" and (as per Carcharoth) whether or not a particular source is reliable is an editorial question, perhaps for WP:RS/N and not a question of an ArbCom motion. Shell 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)