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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:13, 18 October 2010 editNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits →Statement by Martintg: Attention clerks: I give up, withdrawing my clarification request← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,044 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
== Request for clarification: ] (2) ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>

]
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
]
*{{userlinks|Martintg}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|The Four Deuces}}

<!-- 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 Martintg ===
{{cot|Giving up and withdrawing clarification request}}
] (TFD) claims an old clarification from January is still applicable, even though my topic ban has recently been narrowed by amendment. Seek clarification whether this remains the case. To my mind articles about current active national and ethnic disputes like the deleted ], ], ] and ] are the focus of the amended topic ban. Communist topics on the other hand are international in scope as the article in question indicates ]. The cause of this is my attempt to have a reasonable discussion with Paul Siebet , but TFD seems intent on stopping the conversation for some reason.

The original topic ban was elastically worded: "about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, ''widely construed''" and thus communist topics fell under it for that reason, despite the fact that communism was an ideology that eschewed ethnicity or national sentiment and communism is now primarily an Asian phenomenon in the 21st century with little connection to Eastern Europe. The question is whether the amended topic ban is actually materially different from the original or is it to be similarly "widely construed", despite the absence of the wording.

Paul Siebert wishes to engage in further discussion, so the Committee needs to decide whether it is for or against promoting constructive dialogue. If the Committee is for it, then please provide some clarity here, if not then uphold TFD's objection and I will pursue something else.

====Response to TFD ====
Well the concept of "]" is an American ] construct. ] and ] were both initiatives of the US government as part of their Cold War strategy, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic under discussion, as I don't know if the US government ever officially linked the Soviet Union to terrorism (if there are sources let me know). Communism was ideological, it crossed national lines, Balts were instrumental in the formation of the Soviet state, see ] and the first to recognise the state too, see ].

It is quite well known that some 70,000 people fled Estonia after the communist takeover in 1940, what is less well known is that some 60,000 people fled Estonia following the failed ], leading to the formation of a number of exile socialist and communist Estonian organisations in the USA. So the split of communist and nationalist sympathies in Baltic society was fairly even, atleast before 1920, proving that communism was an issue of ideology that transcended national boundaries and simply isn't a subject of "national disputes" as stereotypes would have us believe.

However I have been proceeding from sources and my only substantive edit to the article was what I thought was a compromise lede (which now seems to have been accepted and remains in the article after TFD edit warred over it ,,, ) based upon those sources. Looking at the talk page my discussion has been reasonably abstract too (I join the discussion at the first bullet point).

I'm trying to engage in meaningful discussion in that article in good faith, but I get the distinct impression that TFD would rather drive away editors by any means, (for example recently biting a newbie ) as a way in solving content issues. I'm of the view that discussion will do more to resolve the underlying content issues. TFD's combative approach only feeds and perpetuates the dispute. If the Committee is okay with that approach, that's your call. --19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

==== Response to Rlevse ====
Well the Committee did topic ban an unprecedented number of editors, so it is not unusual to expect a proportionate number of requests, clarifications and amendments. I want to get along with others, both Igny and Paul Siebert welcome having a dialogue, only TFD has an apparent issue. This is a simple request for clarification, nothing more, there is no need to agonise over it or turn it into a drama. Your choices are simple:
#Communist topics are outside my topic ban, therefore I can happily discuss and build hopefully a lasting concensus; or
#Communist topics are inside my topic ban, l'll go an do something else while this is put on ice and nothing gets resolved in the mean time.
--] (]) 19:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cob}}
====Further Response to TFD ====
I'm not sure what NATO has to do with anything, unless TFD is now claiming any NATO topic falls under the topic ban too. From what I have observed of communist related topics, past content disputes were not along national/ethnic lines but rather along political left-wing/right-wing lines independent of nationality or ethnicity. I assume TFD isn't East European, I'm not East European either. There exists in Misplaced Pages editors who apparently hold strong left-wing viewpoints and appear to be every bit as tendentious in their approach as any other.

I am gobsmacked by TFD's claim that the text on p218 "does not mention terrorism" here is what is said:
:''""''.

Maybe I am hallucinating, because I am sure that passage just read ''"Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory"''. The resulting text I wrote for the lede which TFD objects too is: ''"Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claim adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during a revolutionary struggle and during the consolidation of power after victory"''. Shrug.

But TFD still maintains the text "does not mention terrorism" today, even after it was pointed out to him on the talk page weeks ago. What can I say with this level of "yes it did/no it didn't" debate in the article. I give up TFD, you win. I don't want to pursue this any further, it just really isn't worth wasting my time and the Committee's time over this. I'm going to pursue more productive endeavours. I'm striking my statement and withdrawing my request for clarification. --] (]) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Igny ===
I think if the narrowed topic ban included ''political'' and ''ideological'' disputes we would not have this discussion. However, I personally do not mind if Martin participates in debates there as long as he does not make unilateral changes in the article without gaining unanimous support on the talk page first and as long as his arguments do not fuel edit wars in articles on controversial topics. (] (]) 22:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC))


===Statement by Mark Nutley===
I do not see what communist terrorism has to do with eastern europe? The majority of communist terrorist groups were western european in origin, there are none that i know of from eastern europe in fact. (unless turkey counts as such?)] (]) 07:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Four Deuces ===
Martintg wrote on the talk page, "The OED further defines "terrorism" as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted", i.e. originally a policy of government, but later including a policy of non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)" He argues to include the Soviet government which was at the center of national disputes since Ukrainians, Balts and other national groups claimed that they had become "captive nations". There is also a question whether the "fighting Communist organizations" of Western Europe were financed or controlled by the Soviet Union. See for example ]. I do not see Martintg taking any interest in other articles about ideology or terrorism, and assume his interest in this article and in ] stems from the fact that they include the Soviet Union. ] (]) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
====Response to Martintg====
While the original basis of national disputes in Eastern Europe lies in ethnic rather than ideological conflict, ideological conflict became part of the dispute. Eastern Europeans allied with Communists against the tsar, Germany against the Soviets and now NATO against Russia. One cannot separate out the ideological and national disputes. As for our disputes on the article, you provided a definition that was not supported by the source. is a link to p. 218 of the book ''Understanding Terrorism'' which does not mention terrorism, let alone "communist terrorism". Another editor has set up a second discussion thread about the newbie who has accused other editors (not me btw) of being "apologists for Communist terrorism". I and other editors have pointed out to him that his lengthy talk page postings using primary sources, original research and personal attacks are unhelpful, but he has not taken any of this advice. ] (]) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*'''Comment''' Why is there an endless parade of arbcases, clarifications, and amendments relating to the EE topics before arbcom? Right at this moment, there are 6 clarifications/amendments at RFAR. To quote ], "...Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible..."? Why is it the same editors from the EE topic keep appearing before arbcom? Can they not learn to get along with one another?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: DIGWUREN ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Petri Krohn}} (initiator)
<!-- 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 Petri Krohn ===
I am seeking clarification on whether I made yesterday to ] '''a)''' constitutes edit warring, '''b)''' is a part of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or '''c)''' is unrelated to any ongoing edit war in the article.

The article is under discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case limiting editors to 1RR per day.

I try to maintain a 0 RR policy on disputed topics – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. The edit war on the Mass killings under Communist regimes started October 13 and resulted in nine blind reverts by a total of six different editors. A complete list of the edits is available in in ] on the related arbitration enforcement thread. My edits to the article were intended to stop the ongoing edit war by finding and proposing a suitable compromise wording. In the half an hour it took for me to check that my first edit was supported by facts the article went through two more rounds of edit warring.

I believe both my edits were allowed by WP:BRD, more specifically ] – a Misplaced Pages policy that excludes the BRD cycle from edit warring. None of the material I added has ever been disputed; the fact that ] sees a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing is the only thing all editors working on the article have been able to agree on.

Here are three diffs related to my second edit:
#
#
#

The diffs shows three words in common with my first edit and one word in common with the disputed content.

On a general note, I would like the arbitration committee to specify, if the following two statements are a correct interpretation of the relevant policies, ] and ]

# 3RR only applies to edit warring; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not edit warring and is not subject to 1 / 3RR restrictions.
# An edit should be considered part of the BRD cycle and not edit warring, if it addresses a substantial objection raised by another editor (weasel words, BLP violation) – even if it retains a large part of the challenged content.

-- ] (]) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* Generally speaking, edit-warring is a pattern of conduct; it is difficult to say whether a single, isolated edit constitutes edit-warring. From your description of the context, I would say that you inserted yourself in an ongoing edit war, if nothing else; this may or may not have been a good decision on your part, and may or may not be considered sanctionable behavior by administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions in this area.<p>As far as your other question is concerned, 3RR (and similar rules) apply to ''any'' revert, whether it is part of a BRD cycle, a blind revert, or something else; engaging in BRD does not grant an exemption from revert limitations, and one can still be engaged in edit-warring even if BRD is offered—rightly or wrongly—as an excuse. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: EEML ==
'''Initiated by ''' <sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> '''at''' 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Piotrus}} (initiator)

=== Statement by Piotrus ===
I am seeking a clarification of ] currently in effect to my person that states: " topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed".

Few days ago I asked a public question of the Committee ], proposing a potential solution for the ongoing disputes in EE area. I did so believing that a good-faithed comment on how to improve dispute resolution (not concerning articles) does not violate my topic ban. Now I have second thoughts, and I would appreciate a ruling on whether I was allowed to post there on this subject and whether I can keep participating in the discussion (or should I self-revert all my edits there?).

My rationale for thinking I am allowed to start and participate in that discussion is as follows:
* it is not a process discussion about EE content (I am topic banned from "articles about Eastern Europe" and discussions of them), but a (good-faithed, no-parties named) discussion about generic editor behavior in that area and how it may be improved. I always understood the "process discussions" part of the ban as ban from content-related things like AfDs, FAs, WikiProject pages and such, and the word "same" to refer to any "articles about EE", but not a ban from being able to discuss the EEML case itself (which would obviously prevent me from feeling the amendment or clarification requests) and wider, non-article specific circumstances surrounding it (which is what that particular discussion is);
* my thoughts are based on the discussion(s) seen at my Amendment request, where I am obviously allowed to post, but which is not the best place for threaded discussion, hence another place had to be found and I concluded that the public Committee discussion page is the best forum for it;
* it is a question directed (publicly) to the Committee, on the official Committee pages, hence I hope it is obvious it was never intended to be a "topic ban evasion" or such;

Hence I believe my post there and subsequent comments do not violate my topic ban. Would this be a correct belief?

If my participation in that thread is not proper, I am ready to self-revert at any time. Also, till such a time as there is consensus here that I can participate there, I will not do so. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Strictly speaking, this ''is'' a violation of the ban. That said, good faith dispute resolution is generally considered an exception and I would be disinclined to pursue a sanction in a case like this even though it doesn't ''exactly'' qualify. On the third hand, the entire EE area suffers from ''waaaay'' too much bickering and the topic bans were made to help the participants disengage.<p>In other words, it was okay-ish enough; discussing other involved editors (specifically or obliquely) is a very bad idea, but I'm not about to curtail genuine attempts to improve the area. Thread carefully, and remain constructive and I doubt you'll find opposition. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
*Generally agree with Coren here. ] (]) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: Speed of light ==
'''Initiated by ] (]) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' ]
*{{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Count Iblis}}

<!-- 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 Hell in a Bucket ===
There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in ''recent'' discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. ]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. ] (]) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

'''@ Risker''', I can understand the meatpuppet part of things. Hadn't really thought of it that way. This however is only one instance that the whiff of puppetry has been shown. Is there anything else? ] (]) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:'''Reply to WGFInley''' Your blaming me for beseting you when clearly you did not research the issue fully and is pretty amusing. Maybe you should look, read ''then and only then'' block. You want to get to the nitty gritty you performed a poor admin action, poorly thought through and not at all researched. It is hardly meatpuppetry to contest a bad block. If this was the case every thread asking for a block review on ANI is meatpuppetry. ] (]) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Count Iblis ===
Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and

{{cot|Detailed explanations and responses}}

{{cot|Detailed explanation of AE involvement}}
Obviously when asked by another editor to get involved in an area where you are normally not involved, one has to be very careful. I think I did act with care when Brews told that he wouldn't be able to edit Misplaced Pages for a few weeks and wanted me to keep an eye on an article. That was before any AE request was filed, the issue was merely the possibility of an article getting deleted without much input from univolved editors.

I didn't get involved myself, rather I informed the person who Brews was talking to on the talk page that Brews wasn't going to edit for quite a while. saw that there was an AE request and I there that Brews wasn't going to edit Misplaced Pages. Saying that "I'm Brews advocate" was a bit of joke, but it is also to indicate that I'm bringing some information originating from Brews (the fact that he is absent and that he asked me t take look at certain articles). The AFD that I mention there was the previous AFD, the current AFD is different and has more participants. I got involved in neither of them. What I set out to do on Brews behalf was to merely monitor if there is suffcient review from math editors. In case there hadn't been, I would have raised the issue at Wiki-Project math. David did get involved in the latter AFD, but then he has a history of editing such articles together with Brews.

I also mentioned on the AE page that I asked Hans Adler to take a look at the articles in question and give his opinion on Brews conduct. So, I think I did put all the information I had on the table, I didn't get involved myself in any disputes on Brews behalf, in the sense of putting forward Brews' arguments on which decisions are going to be based at AFD or AE. I clearly stated what is my opinion and what information Brews had communicated to me on the AE page, and I made an effort to get the issues reviewed by indpendent editors of good standing here. The latter issue was the main objective and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
{{cob}}

There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. ] (]) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{cot|Reply to protonk:}}
Protonk: "I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case."

Good, that suggests that you are interested in this case.

Protonk: "It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy)."

How do you define "advocates" here? I have never advocated for Brews views as far as defending any edits he intends to make in Misplaced Pages. Advocating for Brews topic ban to be reversed was done by me a long time ago to a,imited degree, but I did later try to find compromizes which could hardly be called "acts of advocacy".


Protonk: "I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors."

This assumes that ArbCom acted based on carefully examing the evidence. They didn't because I was restricted without having advocated to any significant degree, let alone in a disruptive way. So, you are wrong on this point as well.

Protonk: "When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally.""

No, it didn't. You seem to forget that I am an expert in theoretical physics who happens to edit physics pages, who has some physics pages on his watchlist, who can happened to agree with Brews about an example with a figure being added into the centrifugal page, who found the charge that such an example is Original Research to be preposterous and inflamatory. I say then that Brews should find a compromize and make the example shorter, because other editors do have the right to "not like the figure", however frustrating that can be. I reverted to Brews's version once, because removing the example on OR grounds was nonsense.

I took the matter to AN/I only after Brews was warned on his talk page because of the OR complaint and that only when Jehochman warned Brews becuase of that. The way the OR warning was given was entirely misleading (the editor in question made a link to the speed of light issues).

The AN/I discussion led to a review by other physics experts (apart from generating the typical noise), all of the univolved physics experts agreed with me that the section Brews wanted to add was not OR, nothwithstanding other possible legitimate objections one could have ()article bloating, too textbook like etc. etc..

After that AN/I debate, Jehochman, Brews and I continued discussions on my talk page on a friendly tone. I suggested to Brews that he should consider contributing to Wikibooks, because the topics he likes to contribute to here in Misplaced Pages are edited by people who push back quite hard on edits that are a bit textbook like. This is unlike the areas I have been contributing to (e.g. I haven't experienced much problems in the field of thermodynamics here when making such edits).

Conclusion: Protonk has a poor understanding of the details of this case, he doesn't understand what motivates me. The problem is that he acts in a way that suggest that he has looked into this case in detail (as per my first reply above), giving false credence to the positions he takes.
{{cob}}

More to the point (replying to Protonk was a huge diversion, but unfortunately it is necesary to ] to not let false claims go unchallenged), the nature of the topic area (physics, not politics) and my contributions to this topic area (I have made many edits of a technical nature) should have made it clear that there cannot be any "advocacy" to speak of as far as editing articles is concerned. No hair on my head would even think of arguing for Brews topic ban to be lifted/shortened/modified or whatever, if I didn't believe that he can do something useful here. Lately, I've tried to convice Brews that he is the ideal person to make good quality contributions to WikiBooks.

This whole overreaction about my actions doesn't bode well for the climate change case. If straightforward issues cannot be assessed and acted on properly, then there is zero chance things will go well after the climate change concludes and the discretionary sanctions regime comes into force. I predict the same mess as we've seen on the General Sanctions board. ] (]) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously ArbCom has forseen the possibility of the trouble I'm referring to above and this is why Remedy 3 is being proposed also for good editors like Polargeo and KimDabelsteinPetersen, but I don't think that will matter much. ] (]) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cob}}

;The reality that many people see advocacy/meatpuppetry for Brews
That's perhaps the case, but it is always without evidence. The core part of Misplaced Pages are its articles, and there clearly haven't been any problems there. There are no brainless defenses of Brews edits, like reverting to Brews version without good arguments (I think I only made one revert to a verson preferred by Brews in the last few months for good reasons). Then on peripheral issues in meta discussions etc. one can get certain perceptions, but then that part of Misplaced Pages is similar to any other social medium where false ideas can easily spread and take hold. Compare to Obama not being born in the US, ] is quite sure about this. ] (]) 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

;What Arbcom previously found
Please carefully read on the speed of light ArbCom file the Findings of Facts, the discussions and the final decision of the Arbitrators leading them to impose the advocacy restriction. What you find is.... well, uhm...... nothing, nada, zilch. ArbCom passed the moton without any discussions or any findings, they just did this to have a quiet period surrounding Brews. Brews topic ban as to be lifted in 90 days and in hat 90 day period no disputes should not escalate.

While I disagreed with being restricted, I also decided to stick to this and not try to contest it (which would have been rather difficult anyway, give that the restriction barred me from talking about Brews in any way). But, given that there was no normal case in which evidence was presened to motivate this decision and that no defense was mounted, one cannot now invoke the mere fact that the restriction was imposed as strong evidence that there had been improper behavior. You really have to point to diffs from late last year or early this year to directly point out bad behavior. That's also in general the right thing to do; I'm always willing to discuss and accept criticisms about specific things I am alledged/judged to have done wrong.

In general, I would say that on Misplaced Pages, simply agreeing to disagree and moving forward is a good thing. Typically, in ArbCom cases, ArbCom can decide that someone who hasn't actually done a lot wrong, should stay out of area X to keep the peace (the situation can be polarized and "being right" isn't always the same as "being helpful"). Accepting such a decision should be promoted, precisely because it goes against natural instinct not to "defend your rights". But if history is later going to be rewritten along the lines of: "There was so much disruption and bad behavior that ArbCom took the unprecendented step of barring that editor from being involved in area X", in order to argue that present behavior which is normal for any other editor is not ok. for the editor in question, then this will undermine the whole idea of editors agreeing to move on. ] (]) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by Brews ohare===

The position of Risker echoed by SirFozzie is unsupported nonsense. As I was to be absent for several weeks, and expected Blackburne to recommend an article for deletion that I had created just prior to leaving, I asked Count Iblis to link should the AfD arise. That is all that was meant by his "acting as my advocate", an unfortunate choice of words. He was simply a messenger. ] (]) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
:''' Risker & SirFozzie''' have decided to represent any support of myself in arbitration as , depicting dissent as a violation of WP policy. Now '''WGFinley''' adduces as "contextual" support the short response time of Dr K in drawing attention to Finley's unwarranted block, not of myself but of ]. Wow, what a generous apology for thoughtless behavior! On reflection, these administrators' "meatpuppetry" campaign sounds like a great precedent to bring up ''against my (speedy) detractors'' in these arbitration brouhahas, should these innuendos ultimately find traction. ] (]) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Although disavows any connection between ''advocacy'' and ''motive'', it is apparent that the enforcement of a ban against advocacy would be unnecessary if it were thought that simple statement of of arguments supporting a point of view were involved. Rather, this ArbCom action suppressing advocacy supposes some objectionable disruption that must be stopped, which as it happens was never the case. This ban was censorship of dissent, not an action to protect WP. ] (]) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent comment by ] accuses ] and ] of "routinely" showing up to "defend" Brews. That characterization should be examined more closely. The appearance of ] and ] in disputes involving me ''never'' has been "routine" (suggesting no thought went into it, it was just matter of course) and ''never'' has been a "defense of Brews" (suggesting that their entry is only because it is myself involved, and nothing else). In contrast to the incorrect claim that these editors say that "I can do no wrong", these editors have in fact often suggested to me means to reconcile my difficulties, ranging from leaving to go to Citzendieum or to Wikibooks, to other recommendations (like mentoring) should I wish to stay put on WP. ] should re-examine the history of events.

I wish I could say that it is amazing that administrators, with important responsibilities to be accurate in their statements and to consider carefully the facts, often do neither. It is unfortunate to see once more a simple appeal for clarification being perverted to become a retrial of past behavior, and made into an effort to wedge open the door to extended sanctions. It is one more example of something I have come reluctantly to understand - ''never, never, never'' go to arbitration. Whatever you want to discuss or clarify <u>will not be addressed</u>: instead the occasion will be recast by old adversaries to extract another pound of flesh and enjoy old-fashioned revenge in a venue where fact, fairness and the good of WP have no bearing. ] (]) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by ] (]) ===
I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case. It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy). I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban ''naming'' these ] . When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally. ] (]) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

I was recently working on the ] referenced earlier. I saw Count Iblis' advocacy statement there and misread the status of the numerous sanctions on this case. I thought that Count was still prohibited from advocacy of Brews and I blocked him for 24 hours and notified him on ]. Within 20 minutes of this action my ] by multiple parties namely Dr.K and Hell In A Bucket. After things calmed down a bit I was able to determine the sanctions were lifted and I removed the block.

I wish to chime in for two reasons:
# The decision page for this case is virtually impossible for an admin trying to do his job to follow. There needs to be a way to either rollup or break out sanctions that have been rescinded, modified, etc.
# I am unfamiliar with the totality of this case and its numerous changes but one thing remains clear, it appears several users are acting in concert, whether that is to the level of being a meatpuppet for Brews I leave that for the committee to decide. --] (]) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

====Response to Dr.K====

First, my apologies for not notifying you I thought you were already mentioned and clearly you were not, that was my mistake.

Having done a lot of admin work in conflict areas like Palestine-Israel, a bit in Macedonia, you see patterns as I do here. In this case I blocked a user and two other users, very familiar with the status of various sanctions, came to his defense within minutes (the number, timing and Hell's initial demeanor inspired my choice of the word "beset") before he even spoke for himself. In and of itself it's not necessarily proof of anything. However, in context, it could further substantiate the ] and ] concerns Arbcom previously found concerning Brews and thus levied sanctions. --] (]) 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dr.K. ===
I just read the statement above by WGFinley and I felt that I had to ask for a clarification. I was not planning to attend this particular activity but the statement above is sufficiently unclear in my opinion to require some explanation. So I ask, is WGFinley implying that I had some connection with HIaB in acting to alert him about Count Iblis' wrongful block? Did I do something wrong in trying to alert him? Am I somehow under suspicion? I thought that through my exchanges with WGFinley and after numerous clarifications between us and some apologies the matter was settled. Now I see that I am mentioned by him in some vague statements. I am disappointed to see this but I hope it is a misunderstanding on my part of the statement by WGFinley. I also hope that the vagueness of WGFinley's statements about me is not intentional. I also strongly object to WGFinley's use of the verb "beset" which has a primary dictionary definition of "to attack on all sides; assail; harass: to be beset by enemies; beset by difficulties." If informing an admin in good faith for the plight of a wrongfully blocked fellow editor is translated as "besetting" said admin this reflects very sadly indeed on good faith communication between editors on Misplaced Pages. I can assure him that if he thinks that I beset his talkpage by letting him know about the wrongfulness of the block that I will never visit his talkpage again. I am simply not interested in communicating with anyone who thinks that I beset their talkpage just by trying to correct an obvious error by leaving a brief and polite message. I hope that such use of the verb "beset" does not imply that there should be a class system under which the plebeian common editors are reminded they had better mind their own business and not upset the ruling admin aristocracy by trying to communicate with them, even in the face of wrongful blocks. Finally is it customary for a non-participating user to be mentioned in a hearing and not get a courtesy notice about it on their talkpage? I do hope I get some straight answers as much as I hope my forced participation in this hearing to be as brief as possible. Thank you. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

====Response to WGFinley====
Thank you for your non-reply. Unfortunately you just verified my worst fears about your incompetent and vague statements about me. First you seem to be making a lot of mistakes in your statements lately. You thought that I was part of this case. Well I was not and I expect higher standards of behaviour and cluefulness especially from an admin and one aspiring to get involved in Arbitration matters. You have not answered any of my concerns and you made things worse by insisting on weaseling ideas around about tag-teaming and meatpuppetry. I take this as a personal attack. You use the mere coincidence of the timing of my reaction with HiaB against me and you imply malicious things about me. But don't worry. I do not take your statements and insinuations seriously. Your behaviour thus far, full of mistakes as it is, is a clear indication of the quality of your scurrilous assertions. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition I know that I came in good faith and thinking I was performing my wiki civic duty to your talkpage to inform you about your mistake in blocking the Count. After some hesitation you appeared receptive and you undid the block while apologising "all round" to use your expression. Then you come here unbeknownst to me and not informing me to make all these weasel accusations against me. I content that in light of your all around apologies during the block incident your actions here are logically and morally inconsistent and your accusations against me way off the mark. You don't apologise to people that you think beset you and are tag teamers and meatpuppets. This paints a picture of inconsistent and incompetent actions not befitting someone with AE enforcement responsibilities. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. ] (]) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
*Echo Risker's comments above, and note the current AE request regarding this current area. Count's words may have been "unfortunate", as Brews Ohare as stated, but it reflects a reality that many of us see, that Count Iblis, Hell Inn a Bucket, and other editors act as advocates/meatpuppets for Brews Ohare. ] (]) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
*I think what Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are missing here is that when they routinely show up to defend Brews, at length, in various venues, it begins to wear on everyone and regardless of their intent, looks like advocacy. If you have real interest in helping another editor, assisting them in resolving their problems is always going to actually help - pretending those problems don't exist and they can do no wrong just makes the problem worse. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut 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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: