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 22:46, 30 August 2015 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators27,345 edits →Amendment request: Longevity: closed amendment request by motion to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,038 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
] ]
] ]

== Clarification request: Christianity and Sexuality ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Christianity and Sexuality}}

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

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*

=== Statement by Callanecc ===
Following an ] (I'll add a permalink when it's closed) could the Committee please clarify what the second part of dot point one in '']'' ("and is required to discuss any '''content''' reversions on the page's talk page") applies to.

My suggestion would be that the bit in brackets for the first clause could be made to apply to the second clause as well, or if ] could be applied to the whole dot point?

Roscelese may wish to make request regarding exceptions for dot point 2, but I'll leave that up to her. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Thryduulf}} That really depends, currently there is no mechanism other than a formal amendment for the arbitrator comments below to be taken into account (or even found and referred to) for any enforcement in the future. If the Committee doesn't have an appetite for a formal amendment by motion perhaps they could do it through this request by foot noting the remedy with a summary of the arb comments here (though that would probably need to be done by an arb rather than a clerk). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
::Actually given that not all of the arbs commenting have answered:
::*Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?
::*Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies ])?
::<b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
:The thing to consider here (and something which has come up in the past) is that if the admins involved in the enforcement of the Committee's decision don't understand or need clarification to confirm their interpretation (whether the interpretation is correct or not) then the Committee should provide that clarification as clearly as possible. The comments here are equivalent to obiter dicta on the PD page and they disappear to the case talk page, that is, you'd look at the decision the Committee has passed when deciding whether to report/enforce not the case talk page. In this case the dot points are separate items and so don't necessarily rely on the conditions set in in each other, so in this case the questions being asked are valid and may very well come up again. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

:Thanks {{u|Courcelles}}. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Roscelese ===
*Obviously, I agree with the arbs who have commented here; if the user had provided some reason for removal (either in the edit summary or the talk page) I wouldn't have reverted with a simple "?" ("why did you do this?"), which seemed like a nicer thing to say than "rv vandalism" despite the lack of a summary, the fact that the text was cited to reliable sources, and the absence of other edits on the account. –] (] &sdot; ]) 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz ===
I don't see any reason to make material changes to the sanctions. The sanctions involved in my initial filing set minimum communication requirements. She breached; no one seriously argues otherwise. Claiming her breach was justified by ] simply doesn't fly; BANEX requires that "''If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption''". That's pretty much equivalent to the communication requirement that Roscelese didn't comply with; it would be rather silly to say she should provide an edit summary explaining why she didn't have to provide an edit summary. Perhaps the Committee might amend the second clause of the remedy to allow an appropriate edit summary in lieu of talk page comment when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations, but Roscolese didn't even make that minimal effort here. The more significant issue, as I saw it, was the violation of sanction 2, making an automated rollback-type edit without providing an edit summary; given that rollback-type edits are pretty much limited to situations which would fall under BANEX, it seems clear to me that no exception was indicated by the Committee's language. ] (]) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Christianity and Sexuality: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Christianity and Sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Generally speaking, an unexplained removal of large chunks of an article, especially by a very new editor, is reasonably treated as a vandal or test edit. Roscelese was well within reason to do so here. I would see the meaning of "content revert" as the reversal ''of a content edit'', which would exclude vandalism. Regardless, I'm not inclined to require Roscelese to start a talk page discussion every time she removes "HI JOE!!!!!!!!" type vandalism from a page. If, of course, that editor comes back and provides a reason they believe the material should be removed, that would then bring these restrictions into force should Roscelese revert it again. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
*I just re-read the restriction in question and was surprised to see that we did not explicitly say it did not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism/BLP violations; that said, I agree with Seraphimblade. It would be a waste of time to have Roscelese open a thread whenever she were to revert vandalism. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
*i agree with both of my colleagues. Next time we must make this explicit. ] (]) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
*Having thought about this more since my comment at AE, I think all that is needed for vandalism reverts is an edit summary that notes it is vandalism being reverted (which is good practice for everyone). I'd be happy to amend the wording of the restriction to make this clear if people think that would be worthwhile. ] (]) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
*:{{replyto|Callanecc}} to explicitly answer your two questions:
**{{xt|Is a talk page discussion necessary for vandalism/BLP reverts?}} It is neither required nor prohibited.
**{{xt|Is an explanation required for rollback-type reverts which are of "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations"? If so, what sort, talk page note or edit summary, and how detailed, "explanation" implies some detail)?}} An explanation is needed, but an edit summary noting the nature of the revert (i.e. that it is reverting indisputable vandalism or BLP violations) is sufficient. ] (]) 10:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
* We need to examine the full relevant sentence of the restriction being clarified:<p>{{Talkquote| is: indefinitely restricted to making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page}}Given that reversions are expressly defined as excluding "indisputable vandalism and BLP violations", reverting simple vandalism is outwith the scope of the restriction. In my view no amendment is needed and the answer to the question seems fairly plain. ] ]] 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
**It's actually the second bullet point that clarification is being sought with regards:<p>{{Talkquote| is: indefinitely prohibited from making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;}} While that contains no exceptions on it's own, it unclear whether the exception in the first bullet is intended to apply only to the first restriction or to both restrictions. ] (]) 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
*** Yes it is, thanks Thryduulf. I think all of the above in any case have answered the question from that angle fairly exhaustively, so I still concur that no amendment is required. ] ]] 03:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::"Yes it applies to both"; or "yes it applies to the first only"?. I read it as applying to both. There can be a need to revert vandalism immediately; there is not a need to revert without explanation. ''']''' (]) 04:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
:*I read it as no discussion is required for reverting obvious vandalism, and Rosclese did nothing wrong here. ] (]) 00:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
* I agree that Roscelese should not be required to start a talk page discussion for reverting obvious vandalism. An edit summary mentioning that this was vandalism wouldn't have been a bad choice, but I'm not terribly concerned by "?". If we need to modify restrictions so that this is more clear, so be it, but I think that the exception of obvious vandalism is implied. ] <small>]</small> 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
*I think at this point we need input. Do {{ping|callanecc|Roscelese|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} or anyone else feels that the clarifications are sufficient as they stand or whether we need to amend the wording? ] (]) 11:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
*Mildly surprised this is necessary, but suggest we add "except when reverting obvious vandalism/BLP violations" so that the sanction is clearer for anyone considering it at AE. -- ] (]) 20:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:*{{yo|Euryalus}}, that would have to be done by motion, but it is not a bad idea. I'm going to write one, hopefully this is noncontroversial, and we can get this out of here. ] (]) 17:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Kww and The Rambling Man}}

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

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*]

=== Statement by Nyttend ===
As noted at ], the second remedy is rather confusing. Did you mean to say that Kww may not get the editfilter right unless he re-passes RFA, or did you not mean to address such a situation? I'm not marked Kww as a party because this isn't related to his post-case behavior: it's just a confusing element of the decision, and an authoritative interpretation would be helpful. ] (]) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:Just a note after reading Salvio's comment — my only concern is that we get an unambiguous statement from Arbcom, because everyone loses when there's an ambiguous decision. I don't really know either editor and don't have an opinion on what Arbcom should decide here (so no point in asking my opinion); I just hope you'll decide something in place of the current wording, so that we all know what you were intending in the first place. ] (]) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dragons flight ===
Due to his apparent lack of due care and competence in previously implementing edit filters, I am opposed to any process that would allow Kww to regain the EFM right without a community review. See my previous comments: . My understanding of remedy #2 while it was being drafted is that a desysopped Kww would be required to pass RFA before getting EFM restored, and I don't see any reason to weaken that. If this case hadn't been coming to RFAr already, I would have opened a separate community discussion about revoking Kww's EFM right. In practical terms, I assume it will be years (if ever) before Kww passes an RFA, but I don't think there ought to be a path that allows Kww to regain EFM any sooner than that (and I'm not sure he should be an EFM even if he passes RFA). Keep in mind that EFM capabilities are in some ways more powerful than the normal admin toolkit. ] (]) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Kww}} It has never been clear to me that you really understood my criticisms / concerns, which is part of the problem. However, I don't want to have an argument with you about this. Should you actually want additional feedback on this issue (either now or some time in the future), I would suggest that you ask for other people at ] to give you their opinions of your previous filters. ] (]) 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kww ===
I already understood the restriction to be much as Salvio phrased it. I deeply resent Dragon flight's portraying our different opinions as to the weight that should be placed on false positives as a competence issue: I could just as reasonably claim that his insistence on consuming resources looking for rare corner cases was a competence issue. Neither one is: it's a difference in opinion as to where a reasonable balance between execution efficiency and false triggers lies.&mdash;](]) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

===Comment by Salvidrim===
Since we're really getting down-and-dirty with the specifics of wording, I don't feel too bad about chiming in: in Salvio's proposed wording underneath <small>(visibly inspired by an earlier post of mine)</small>, the removal of EFM is described first as a "restriction" that would automatically expire, and later as a "remedy" than can be appealed. The wording should probably brought in line with either term (restriction or remedy) for consistency? I really feel pedant pointing this out though. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big>&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Francis Schonken ===
This may be understood in the current comment by Arbs (although I see no reference to it) but a non-admin desiring "edit filter manager user right" has to go through some procedure as described at ], second and third paragraph (starting with "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should ''only'' be requested by and given to highly trusted users, and only when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it...")

My point is this: if and when (within a year or whatever) a non-admin Kww would request a lifting of remedy 2 of the ArbCom case, I don't see how this could automatically result in Kww getting the edit filter manager user right back. Or would the ArbCom plan on overriding the regular procedure by ArbCom decision? Any future decision to lift that sanction should imho be formulated thus that ''after'' lifting of the sanction (if and when this is granted, in a scenario where Kww would not be an admin at that time) the regular procedure for a non-admin to be granted the right should be followed.

Seeing the analysis here: ] I can imagine some reluctance by those allowed to grant the right to non-admins.

All this is a bit far ahead, and needs to be dealt with when it would occur in the future (if and when etc.), and by that time procedures might be completely different (especially when the community would take up on remedy 3 of the case), but I think it best this caveat is taken into the equasion now. --] (]) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Kww and The Rambling Man: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*I have added Kww as a party, because they are named in the above mentioned remedy (]). ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
**{{re|Nyttend}} Oh, I hadn't seen your note. In any event, they are still required to be notified, as the clarification request could directly impact a remedy against Kww and what they can and cannot do. ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Kww and The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Nyttend, you are quite right that the remedy, as currently worded, leaves a bit to be desired and gives the impression that, short of another successful RFA, Kww may not receive the edit filter manager bit back; as far as I'm concerned, that's not satisfctory and, for that, I propose we reword the relevant remedy to {{xt|Kww's edit filter manager permission is revoked. If he regains the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire; in addition, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
*Given that Kww has been desysopped, the only thing of relevance is how Kww may regain his EFM permission. The remedy is not brilliantly worded I agree, but the restriction it imposes is not ambiguous: He may not regain the bit while the restriction is in effect. The restriction automatically expires if he regains adminship at RfA, at which point he may regain the bit according to policy at that time (if there is no change between now and then he could assign it to himself if he desired). There is no restriction on when he can stand for adminship. I agree with Salvio that the restriction should be appealable at WP:ARCA 12 months after it's imposition (i.e. no sooner than August 2016). ] (]) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
*I also agree that the EFM restriction should be appealable after some reasonable period of time has passed, 12 months would be fine for that. I don't think we need an amendment for that, though, as any arbitration remedy can be appealed at ARCA after a reasonable period, and the Committee can at that time choose to accept the appeal and lift the restriction. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
*I'd be in favour of changing the wording of the decision, per Salvio giuliano's text above. At the time it was written (when it was unclear whether the desysop would pass or not) the current wording was arguably preferable; now that Kww has been desysopped it's overly convoluted and would benefit from being simplified. ]&nbsp;]] 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
*Out of the loop guy here. I would much rather us not have our hands in restoring permissions and have a fresh RfA be the only route of removal of the restriction. --] &#124; ] 14:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
**In a hypothetical appeal to ARCA I would not be supporting any granting of the permission directly. I would consider giving permission to ask the community, taking into account the change in attitude and behaviour over the year and the level of scrutiny likely to be imparted at the relevant venue. ] (]) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
***But that is disingenuous. There isn't a good ] like place to have that discussion that is in view of the community. By giving the OK for a discussion to happen at a little watched part of project space we are basically flipping the switch ourselves. I would much rather not have the committee in these matters. If anyone has a better idea for a community-centered way of signaling that the restriction is no longer needed, I am all ears. --] &#124; ] 20:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
****Currently that is indeed the case and I would not support it. However if the proposal to split the EFM permission that was raised during the case happens, or if something else changes between now and next August that makes requesting the EFM bit something other than a barely observed blip in a backwater then I might support (depending on Kww of course). Alternatively, we could just say that the restriction may be appealed at the later of (a) when such a community process exists and (b) 12 months have passed. Of course this is academic if Kww does not wish to regain the EFM bit in advance of a successful RFA. ] (]) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*I'd prefer the community to handle this, not us. ] (]) 17:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*The remedy was convoluted, I'm sorry for that, but the part of it was to create provisions with or without the desysop, given that usual policy is that admins may self-assign the flag. This could easily be reworded now to be clearer that the remedy expires if/when RFA is passed, but I will not support any appeal other than via RFA given the absence of any process with scruitiny to grant the EFM flag, and a belief that Arbcom should not be (re)granting permissions that have clear community processes to grant. This flag is a bit unusual, but we've given a clear community appeal here. (Had he not been desysopped, there would have been no community process of any rigor/scrutiny to regrant the flag) ] (]) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Argentine History ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Argentine History}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|MarshalN20}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Cambalachero}}

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*

; Information about amendment request
*
:*Requesting removal of topic ban. This is an appeal that was allowed after one year of the decision; nearly 2 years have passed.


=== Statement by MarshalN20 ===
A considerable amount of time has passed since the "ARBARG" case reached its conclusion. After the topic ban was placed, I asked then-arbitrator ] on how to proceed in order to appeal it; he suggested that I tackle a controversial article and take it to featured status (see ). Since then, I have taken three articles to featured status (], ], and ]), and I am now in the process of passing another one through the GA-FA process (]) as well as conducting a GA review of an article by ]. It is worth mentioning that I worked on the controversial Falkland Islands article with ] and was supervised by administrator ].

I am requesting the removal of this topic ban on the basis of the following points:
:*'''First''', I have demonstrated through actions that I am a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia. Over a year has passed since the ARBARG case, and so the topic ban at present is punishing rather than preventative (which goes against ]).
:*'''Second''', I understand my mistake and apologize for it. I was accused of battleground conduct because I pointed out that the editing patterns of certain editors were suspicious and favoring a national POV rather than a neutral POV. I felt that my points were left ignored, so I became increasingly aggressive. This behavior was wrong. At the time I did not know that there existed a ] where I could have taken my concerns. I now know of its existence and, in the future, plan to use it in order to avoid creating bilateral conflict that is disruptive to the encyclopedia.
:*'''Third''', since its inception, the topic ban has been the cause of much harassment against me. Most of the enforcement and amendments that followed were the result of hounding users taking advantage of the TBAN's lack of clarity. Luckily, in all cases either an administrator or the Misplaced Pages Community stood by my side and repealed any harm done to my user account. Unfortunately, this has not prevented users from still using the TBAN to attack me. For example, most recently I was called a "delinquent" and unfairly accused of misbehavior for simply directing a new user to contribute to Misplaced Pages; the situation was so ridiculous and upsetting that administrator ] boxed it up (see ).
The third point, which goes against ], is what has prompted me to request this TBAN removal. The harassment needs to stop, and the only way to do so is by removing this unnecessary, punitive topic ban. My contributions to Misplaced Pages speak for themselves and demonstrate that I am not an editor that deserves this type of mistreatment. In fact, this experience has taught me many valuable lessons about Misplaced Pages and its community, including the reality that many editors also deal with this problem of harassment; in the near future, I would like to become an administrator in order to help users become productive editors while also tackling harassment issues which drive away productive editors. To achieve this goal, I will have to earn the community's trust, and this I will do by committing myself to continuing my positive behavior and contributions to this online encyclopedia. To be more precise about my near future plans, I would like to first take the ] article through an FA re-review (since it no longer meets the standards) and next work on taking more articles to featured status (mostly those in my sandboxes).

Please let me know if you have any questions. I would kindly appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions prior to arbitrators making any final decision on this request.--] ] 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

:In light of recent comments, I would just like to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon. I believe that, if needed, {{ping|EdJohnston}} can provide further insight on the situation that recently occurred with Keysanger, and he can also explain each side's behavior. As I write this message, I read the following recommendation from the committee: "Be professional. Comments that are intended to provoke a negative reaction or that are uncivil are completely unhelpful." That's exactly what I plan to do. Regards.--] ] 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cambalachero ===
I understand the reasons why I was topic banned back then. I know that many people does not trust me, I can't simply ask for a lift of the topic ban by just stating my good intentions. Although two years have passed, I think that I have to ''earn'' that trust, and time alone may not be enough. For that reason, I asked some months ago for exceptions for the biographies of the Argentine presidents from 1983 to modern day: if I manage to make them all featured articles, then I may have something to justify my case. Unfortunately, my limited time did not allow me to have any progress that I may show at this point (I'm just with a good article nomination, and nothing more). Because of this, I will make no special request in this case for me at this point.

On the other side, there ''is'' a request I would like to make: please do not tie Marshal20's fate with mine. His situation is not the same, and his topic ban should be lifted now. The original dispute was with the biography of ]; the scope was expanded to all of latin american history surely to prevent the problems with "testing the limits" if the thing was too narrow. But if you check him, you will see that before that dispute he had never took part in any discussion or made any significant number of edits to either the article of Rosas or to some other article that may be more or less related (such as those in the navbox {{tl|Argentine Civil War}}). In fact, he's not Argentine but Peruvian, and the national histories of Argentina and Peru had very little points of intersection. MarshalN20 simply joined the discussion when the discussion had been taken to venues to request to intervention of more users, just that. If someone deserves to be punished for that old dispute, let it be just me. ] (]) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

:Second comment: please take Keysanger's comments with care, and ''check'' them instead of taking them at face value. First, have in mind that MarshalN20 has '''not''' been topic banned because of his work in the article on the ]. That article has never been discussed during the case, it just fell into the expanded topic ban placed to make sure that we did not get anywhere near Juan Manuel de Rosas (and let's point that both topics are not even contemporary; the war started almost 30 years after Rosas was ousted in the distant Buenos Aires). The topic ban does not prevent MarshalN20 from discussing with or about Keysanger ''as a user'' (for example, providing evidence in a sock puppet discussion about Keysanger). Neither should be forbidden to talk about the articles ''as articles'' (as in "X user has been editing Y article"), as long as he does not discuss the content of the article or try to influence the way it is being edited (and note that when Keysanger says that MarshalN20 provided info in a sockpuppet discussion related to the War of the Pacific, he's not pointing that the user under investigation ''is him''). He describes a diff as "was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific", which is a completely inaccurate description of the discussion linked (note that admin EdJohnston saw no problem in that discussion; a newbie asked MarshalN20 for help and he simply told him someone else who may help). As for the wikisource link, which is the alleged problem? Here in wikipedia, ], and I'm sure that the same applies in wikisource; there can hardly be a hidden agenda if we simply ]. In any case, have in mind that Keysanger already held several disputes with different users about the war of the pacific, in a short investigation I have seen two mediation attempts (see ] and ]), an edit war that led to article protection for two months (]), and another edit war that had him blocked (], the admin points that "The saga of the War of the Pacific continues"). ] (]) 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by BarrelProof ===
I was dismayed when the topic ban was imposed on MarshalN20 (on 23 June 2013), and I ] on MarshalN20's User talk page at the time. I have interacted with MarshalN20 for some years here, and have personally always found MarshalN20 to be a helpful and constructive contributor who seems to be here to help write a good encyclopedia. I also ] MarshalN20 to request for the ban to be lifted (on 3 July 2015), which at the time I thought was one year after the topic ban was imposed, but actually I now notice that ''two years'' has passed by. I think enough time has gone by to further demonstrate that this user is a very helpful contributor to Misplaced Pages. The user has also expressed regret for the prior behavior that led to the ban, which further demonstrates a willingness to do better in the future. I never really thought I properly understood the prior dispute, but have always thought MarshalN20 was a generally good editor who should be allowed ''and encouraged'' to help further improve Misplaced Pages – in all areas – and ''especially for the history of Latin America'', as that is a subject on which MarshalN20 appears to have considerable expertise and a commitment to try help and to try to improve accuracy and NPOV (e.g., with regard to political and nationalistic biased editing). I thus '''''strongly support''''' removal of this old topic ban. —] (]) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Keysanger ===

The ban was imposed on 23 June 2013. Since then MarshalN20 has broken the ban a lot of times, always in an agressive manner:
* On 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 commented in the talk page of the War of the Pacific:
* On 27 Feb 2014 he wrote ''Hopefully now that Keysanger has "retired" the editing of War of the Pacific articles will have less conflict.'' (BTW he is canvassing votes for his nomination of an article)
* On 6 Mai 2014 he participated in a investigation about my contribs in the War of the Pacific : ]
* On 29 May 2014 he wrote '' I am still concerned by the behavior of these users. Their contribution history is filled with combative nationalist behavior in controversial articles (please see ). ''
* On 27 June 2014 Cloudac seeks advice by MarshalN20 how to proceed in the War of he Pacific
* On 21 October 2013 MarshalN20 induced Darkness Shines to gather information against an editor of the article War of the Pacific (Darkness Shines is now blocked for different causes) ''... My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review...''
* On 22 October 2013 Darkness Shines asks MarshalN20 for information to post to the War of the Pacific article ''EMail me the full quotes please''
* On 22 October 2013 MarshalN20 sent the information needed for reaking the ban. He knew that he was breaking the ban but he didn't care: ''The information is found in the second paragraph of page 192. I'd rather not take any further action at this point without listening to Basalisk's advice. Nonetheless, if Basalisk thinks it's appropriate, I can also just write the text to your talk page (both in Spanish and the translation). I am honestly not trying to mock the topic ban (and have been mindful of it in my actions); in this case, the issues of vandalism and conflict of interest are pretty blatant.
* On 23 October 2013 Darkness shines explained to MarshalN20 which is the best way to break the WP rules : :''{{tlx|reply|MarshalN20}} Spanish is not my language, posting on my talk page would violate the TBAN, mailing it to me will not.''
* On 27 July 2014 Darkness Shines reverted my proposal at the article War of the Pacific:
* On 28 July 2014 Darkness Shines was congratulated by MarshalN20 for breaking his ban: ''Stay strong, friend. Don't lose your cool in the face of stupidity.''
* On 4 August 2015 was involved again in a discussion about Socketpuppetry in the Article War of the Pacific:

It doesn't belong to the scope of this committee, but intervention demostrates the true intentions of MarshalN20.

A topic ban should not be punitive, but should be preventive, that is it schould protect the others editors working in Misplaced Pages. And the quality of MarshalN20's edits, if any, say nothing about his capacity to team work. There is al lot of "good" editors that have been blocked or are unable to work in team.

In the light of MarshalN20 breaks of the ban, can anyone guarantee that MarshalN20 will respect the Rules of Misplaced Pages this time?. No. He didn't respect the rules before the ban and not during the topic ban and he will not respect the rules if the ban is lifted.

I thus strongly oppose removal of this neccesary topic ban. --<span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">] <small>(])</small></span> 12:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
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 amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Argentine History: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Argentine History: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*It would be most appreciated if {{u|Wee Curry Monster}} and {{u|Basalisk}} could comment here. That being said, provided there are no serious objections, I could see using the same method we've used before, with a probationary lifting of a ban for a year followed by lifting entirely if no incidents occur. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
**I've read through the objections, and don't find anything recent and seriously concerning there. I've proposed a motion accordingly. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
* I concur with Seraphimblade, &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 07:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
* I also think Seraphimblade's proposal of a probationary lifting is a good way forward here, and pending any credible objections I recommend we follow that route. ] (]) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
* Agree that a probationary relaxing of the restrictions would be a good precursor to fully lifting the ban. ]&nbsp;]] 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*I may as well pile on here and agree. Seems a very reasonable course of action. ] (]) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
*Ditto. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

==== Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban suspension ====
:''{{ACMajority|active=13|inactive=2|recused=0|motion=yes}}''

Proposed:

:Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the ] case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an ] action should MarshalN20 fail to adhere to Misplaced Pages editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

:; Support
::# ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
::# ] (]) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::# ] (]) 09:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::# <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::# ] (]) 01:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
::# ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 22:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

:; Oppose
::#

:; Abstain
::#

:; Comments by arbitrators
::
----

== Clarification request: Abortion ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(Previously known as ])

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Abortion}}

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


''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->


=== Statement by Anythingyouwant ===
According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." The reason I ask now for clarification is because today I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a ] article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know. Am I supposed to avoid these types of pages altogether, or are these types of pages not included in the ban, or does it depend upon which parts of these pages I edit? I have made lots and lots and lots of edits to this type of page over the past four years without saying anything remotely related to the A-word.<p>
I assume that this topic ban is a lifetime ban given the reaction of ArbCom members to my , and given my firm position on the matter, and therefore whatever response you give to my present request for clarification will presumably be part of this lifetime ban.<p>
{{User:Callanecc/ArbCom collapse|title=Not relevant to the clarification request. (Hatted with clerks-l authorization.) ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 18:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)}}
In case you want to know, my firm position on the matter is that I have no intention of faking contrition. Your committee's allegation that I "manipulated sources to present a POV contra sourcing guidelines" remains utter bullshit; I did nothing wrong with regard to ''Black's Law Dictionary'' aside from quoting an earlier edition that I did not realize had later been revised, and I made no objection whatsoever to the editor who installed the revised definition (other than earning that editor's explicit thanks by correcting an error of his). Let me be 100% clear about how very far I am from contrition: if this proceeding had involved real names (and thus real reputations), I would have sued every last one of ArbCom's members for slander (that's just a historical fact rather than a threat of any kind).
<p>ArbCom ignored my objections against violations of your own length-limitations on evidence, and ignored my stated intent to not violate those rules myself. I stand by on November 22, 2011 shortly after you voted to topic ban me. If you allow my lack of contrition to affect your answer to the present request for clarification, that will not be surprising, but it would be unfair. The only mistake I regret is not being sufficiently careful about editing an article talk page in 2011 three weeks after I edited a policy page; I should have been more cautious about any appearance of impropriety, even though I was completely up front and honest at the policy page, and even though the change to the policy page was innocuous as of the time I mentioned it at the abortion talk page (an admin had edited my policy change during the three-week interim). I only edited the policy page based on prior advice from an ArbCom member that, I had no idea that the policy change would be relevant weeks later at the article, nor did I understand the policy change as advancing my position; it was just meant to promote procedural fairness. I should have asked an admin for explicit guidance about it at the time.<p>
For years prior to the 2011 ban, your committee subjected me to endless harassment at Arbitration Enforcement, and all of those endless frivolous complaints at AE were denied, see for example these diffs: ,,,, etc. When these messed-up accusations came during the ArbCom case, I was worn out from endless bogus complaints, and perhaps I should have responded fully to the bogus accusations that exceeded the evidence limits, in view of your committee's apparent disregard of those limits. I remain deeply disappointed by this whole matter. I sincerely try my best to follow the rules here, and will follow any decision you make now regardless of whether I agree with it. That's all I have to say at this time relative to the present clarification request.] (]) 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)<BR /><p>
{{cob}}
*@], thanks for referring me to ] which I had not been referred to and had not read before. According to the 2011 decision in this case, I am "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed." It would have been very easy for them to say "topic area" or "edits" instead of "pages", and easy for them to wlink to ]. If you are correct (which you very well may be), I'd like ArbCom to confirm it. Thanks. I don't know if clarification requests are affected by an editor's level of contrition, and so explaining that level was the purpose of the rest of my initial comment here. According to plain English, a page is either abortion-related or it isn't, and, if it is, then plain English seemingly dictates that I may not edit it.] (]) 17:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)<p>
*@], how about waiting until things get out of hand? I sincerely want to know whether, as Bishonen suggests, I am perfectly free to edit abortion-related pages as long as my edits are not about abortion.] (]) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)<p>
<s>I see that my replies to the comments of others have been hidden. You guys are too much! Perhaps you will allow a reply to Thryduulf....] (]) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)</s><small>The comments have been moved out of the little hidden box.</small><p>
*@], since you now suggest arbitration enforcement action against me regarding this matter, is there anything I can do at this point to avoid such action? I have carefully avoided abortion-related articles like ] and ] and ] and the like for four years just to be careful. But I understand from Bishonen's comment below that it's fine for me to edit pages like those as long as I don't bring up abortion. I would like ArbCom to confirm that now, because I do not want to land at arbitration enforcement for editing articles like those.] (]) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
::@] said "you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit." That is painfully obvious. Am I allowed to edit ] and ] and ] if my edits are not about abortion? That seems to be what Bishonen was saying about ].] (]) 18:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
::::@], you seriously want to respond to this request for clarification by essentially saying: "We won't tell you whether you can make non-abortion edits to articles like ] and ] and ] except to say that you shouldn't if you're unsure"? Sheesh. Let me put it this way: only a nutcase would think that a non-abortion edit to any of those articles violates my topic ban, and so I intend to feel free to make such edits unless you advise otherwise.] (]) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
*@], you object to a long quotation that I put in a footnote. Not to worry! I now understand from ] that I shouldn't have made the edit at all. <s>Finding out about that was the main purpose for me coming here, and now I know. I sincerely apologize for this inadvertent error, and it will not happen again. Before coming here I did not realize that I am totally free to make non-abortion edits to articles like ], but barred from making abortion edits to articles like ]. Now I know, and can therefore comply more fully and completely with your topic ban.</s> Incidentally, I'm a big fan of long quotes in footnotes; see, e.g., the footnotes in the lead of ]. YMMV.] (]) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
*@], it seems to me that ] and ] are both abortion-related to some extent. But both also have lots of material that is not abortion-related, and I have come here with the express purpose of finding out whether I can edit the latter. So far, arbitrators say "don't edit it if you're unsure". Well, I am sure that a reasonable person reading my topic ban and ] would say that a non-abortion edit to either article is okay. Is it wise for me to use a "reasonable person" standard? I think so. The Bush article has a whole section titled "Abortion" but the fetus article does not, so why do you think I'm completely banned from the latter but not the former?] (]) 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
*@], ], ], per your comments, I will construe my topic ban as pertaining to "any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion" unless the consensus of arbitrators changes. That was the language in the sanction that this committee imposed on me eight years ago, and is apparently what you wish the most recent topic ban said too. As always, you folks meet my expectations. Cheers.] (]) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
*@], you have posed this question for me to answer: "You are actually claiming that you didn't know and still don't know whether an edit in a section labeled 'Abortion' with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood might raise an issue as to the topic ban?" No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?] (]) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
*@], I have restored the section in question to exactly how it was before I touched it yesterday. Some one edited the section since then, and so I explained and apologized to them. I don't see what more I can do about it. Ever since 2007, you people have assumed the worst possible faith on my part. There was never any possible way I ever could have gotten out from under. It doesn't matter how many years go by without blocks and without the slightest violation of the topic ban, and of course not one word that I say matters because I am presumed to be a venal liar. So sanction me all you want for making a possible mistake and immediately coming here for clarificaton.] (]) 01:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

===Comment by Bishonen===
I believe the ] policy makes it clear what a topic ban is and what it applies to: "{{tq|The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where ], but to allow them to edit the rest of Misplaced Pages. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all ''pages'' (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the ''parts of other pages'' that are related to the topic.}}" Italics in original. In other words it's fine for you to edit most of the article ], but not fine to edit any part of it broadly related to abortion, such as the sentence you inadvertently inserted (in a section called "Abortion", yet). I don't see that there's any doubt about that, and that's what you request clarification of, in your first six sentences. The rest of your text above seems to be about something else — not really about clarification at all. ] &#124; ] 17:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
*@Anythingyouwant, you seem to have read my policy quote quite selectively, since you think I said your topic ban doesn't cover pages such as ] and ] and ] and the like. Of course it covers them. In their entirety. It seems you focused so hard on the words "as well as the ''parts of other pages'' that are related to the topic" that you actually missed the first part, "a topic ban covers all ''pages''… broadly related to the topic". ], ] and ] are "pages broadly related to the topic", ''as you know'', since you yourself refer to them as "abortion-related articles". Please read all the green words carefully and in their context, and avoid tunnel vision.
*@], it seem obvious that you shouldn't have collapsed Anythingyouwant's replies to me and Boris with the other stuff. Those replies were relevant to the clarification request. I'm tempted to move them out of the box myself, or send bold superclerk Bishzilla to do it, because I'm pretty sure you simply made a mistake. The responses weren't indented (as IMO they ought to have been), which perhaps caused you to miss that they weren't part of Anythingyouwant's original irrelevant text. Please fix. ] &#124; ] 19:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
**@Anythingyouwant again: I'm done trying to explain to you, because it seems you prefer not to understand. You're starting to remind me too strongly of ]'s lawyerly demeanour in ]. I'll not address you again. ] &#124; ] 20:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

===Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris===
Editors under sanction are allowed to show their displeasure and let off some steam, but this isn't the place. Suggest this be closed as unactionable before things get out of hand. ] (]) 17:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon ===
Anythingyouwant, you don't have to agree with the decision to topic ban you -- in fact you can continue indefinitely maintaining that Arbcom was completely wrong -- but you do need to show two things. First, you have to agree to abide by the decision whether you agree with it or not. From your comments here, I believe that you have done that. Second, you need to have the ability to understand the topic ban well enough to abide by it. This is the part I am having trouble with. In '''''', you posted a comment under the section heading "Abortion" that contained a link to a page titled ''"Much of the Republican 2016 Field Has Actually Moved to the Right on Abortion"'' and a quote about defunding Planned Parenthood.

Despite the above edit being clearly about abortion, in your statement above you blatantly mischaracterized your edit with this description:

:"I inadvertently inserted the following sentence into a Jeb Bush article: "According to Bush, 'We need to protect innocent life in every aspect', and in 2015 he defended his gubernatorial record in that regard." Then it occurred to me it might raise an issue as to the topic ban. Please let me know."

Seriously? You are actually claiming that you didn't know <s>and still don't know</s> and still didn't know when you opened this discussion whether an edit in a section labeled "Abortion" with links about Abortion and Planned Parenthood ''might'' raise an issue as to the topic ban? ].

My recommendation is that this be brought to AE and and that AE impose a one-to-three-month block and a stern warning that the next time you post any edit about abortion the block will be far longer. --] (]) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

:In response to Anythingyouwant's reply in his section ("No, I am not claiming that, because I have been informed at this page that such an edit is contrary to the topic ban. I came here to get clarity about the topic ban, and I have gotten it. Anything else?") I have rephrased the question above. Anythingyouwant needs to have the ability to tell that '''''' was about abortion without having to ask. If an admin thinks he really had a doubt, then the only logical conclusion is that he lacks the ] required to abide by the topic ban and needs to be indefinitely blocked. If an an admin thinks he knew that the edit was a violation of his topic ban (this is what I believe) then a one-to-three-month block should suffice to convince him that we will not tolerate such behavior. --] (]) 01:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Abortion: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*{{re|Bishonen}} I was directed to {{tq|leave the first two paragraphs but hat everything else}}, so that's what I did, but I see I should've exercised a bit more discretion. I'll move the replies outside of the collapse in a second. ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*The policy as quoted by Bishonen is perfectly clear. Editing a section of an article called "abortion" for a reason not listed at ] is a clear violation of a topic ban from abortion, doubly so given the content you edited was directly related to abortion. You are not appealing your topic ban, so there is nothing to do here and it should be closed quickly with no prejudice to raising anything at ] about this matter. ] (]) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Anythingyouwant}} you will not be sanctioned for not editing articles you are not allowed to edit. If you edit those articles in future you may be sanctioned at AE. I do not "suggest" you be sanctioned for this breach of your topic ban, I am simply saying that this clarification request does not prohibit anyone initiating a discussion if they so choose, nor should it prejudice the outcome if such a discussion is initiated. ] (]) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
***{{replyto|Anythingyouwant}} I do not know how I could make it any clearer than what Bishonen has said - if it is related to abortion you cannot edit it, if it isn't you can. If you are not certain whether something is covered by your topic ban, assume it is - stay clear, do not test boundaries. ] (]) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
*I also agree that BishoIen has expressed policy clearly, but apparently it isn't yet clear that you can not edit any part of an article related to abortion, or anything or section related to abortion in an article which doesn't focus on abortion. If you have any doubts, don't do it. ] (]) 19:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
*{{replyto|Anythingyouwant}} Nor was the material added in an altogether neutral manner. I think it was appropriate to add material showing his current view (the other material in the section was older); the three references you added were suitable (2 of them from sites generally considered liberal, one neutral) But you chose to add a long quotation from Bush that partially repeated other material in the section. (Other refs in the article do not have a quote in the ref, and the site you used was very easy for anyone to access by themselves, rather than being , for example a paid or print-only site.) ''']''' (]) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::to clarify, I am saying that there is a purpose in our general position that topics bans should be being interpreted broadly--it is difficult to retain a truly neutral POV even in what one thinks to be unexceptional edits. ''']''' (]) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
*So far as articles like ], ], etc., those are far too close to the subject. Yes, edits of those articles would be violations of the topic ban. On ], on the other hand, it would be alright for you to edit parts of the article that cover his positions on, say, taxes or foreign policy. It would not, however, be appropriate for you to edit ''any'' page in ''any'' manner related to abortion, including any political figure's political statements or positions on it, except under the exceptions as provided by ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
*I agree with Seraphimblade --] &#124; ] 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Collect and others ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 11:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Collect and others}}

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

''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''
*
*

=== Statement by MrX ===
Does this remedy: ] include an exception for reverting content that is asserted to violate ]?

Folks commenting at ] have different opinions about whether Arbcom intended that "vandalism" includes alleged BLP policy violations, or whether a one revert restriction falls under the authority of ], thus excluding alleged BLP policy violations. See third heading "Collect"

*Relevant case finding: ]

*{{ping|Brustopher}} Don't even go there. Collect was banned from interacting with me because of his bad deeds, not the other way around. Now kindly let Arbcom clarify the restriction. - ]] 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

*{{Ping|Thryduulf}} Would you kindly explain why I, the user who initiated the original Arbcom case, should be advised not to seek clarification about that case at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? I didn't comment on the AE because I had nothing novel to add, but I have an interest in the outcome, because it's clear that Collect doesn't intend to comply with the remedies from the Arbcom case. To suggest that I can't pursue clarification because the ''subject'' of that request was banned from interacting with ''me'' strikes me as rather Kafkaesque, even by Misplaced Pages standards. - ]] 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Collect ===

Note that I am on a Wikibreak (seeking to regain my patience), and had clearly announced such. Note also the endless and multiple complaints at AE etc. - including from two miraculous virgin IPs whose only posts ''ever'' were to complain about me. If this is done for amusement, I am ''not'' amused. I do suggest, moreover, that BLPs ''totally unrelated in any way whatsoever to US politics'' is a poor choice of remedy - I find those who push allegations of felonies in any page to be far more reprehensible than any of my many sins. ] (]) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


I am unable to comment on allegations made about me from another unnamed editor. Any outside observer if free to use the Editor Interaction tool to note whether I have followed any editor, ''or whether another editor appears to follow me''. The results are sure to astound anyone willing to actually look at "who comments on whom".

For jbh - I stated the ''June 15th'' date quite early on, and ask you make your apology clear for ''claiming'' that I did not ask for extra time. ] (]) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I had asked multiple times to address the last minute evidence which had given by others in a coordinated manner (the "complainants" were so bold as to write to each other on user talk pages etc.). When last minut material '''which was not related to the immediate complaint''' was given, I wanted actual time to reply. As it is, I was quite preoccupied and unable to actually address the "charges" even though I asked to be allowed to do so. In most places, the "accused" is afforded every opportunity to address charges. Prevention of a "right of reply" is unusual, indeed. I

@Thry: I have made ''many thousands of edits on BLPs'' - yet you appear to claim that I regularly violated the policy? I find your claim incomprehensible - noting that the immediate anteceding contretemps was whether am article was. or was not, SYNTH and violative of Misplaced Pages policy. I hate to say this, but it damn well looks like you made no actual effort to look at my work, but had "verdict first" as a m.o. A few of the articles I have edited are on my talk page. I stand by them. ] (]) 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - '''note I have made no statements about anyone I am interaction banned form, and object to the snarky implication that I would do so.'''

=== Statement by Nomoskedasticity ===
Collect is on a 1RR restriction in part because (as per Arbcomm findings of fact) his editing of BLPs was not in keeping with policy requirements. It is useful to have editors revert BLP violations, but we don't need someone who has a poor record in this respect making judgments about what constitutes a BLP violation; carving out an exception along these lines is a recipe for disruption. Guy's suggestion is the right way forward: one revert and a noticeboard post so that others can take care of any further problems. ] (]) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jbhunley ===
The whole reason we have restrictions and bans is that some editors have shown that their views of certain policies are not in line with the community's frequently enough that they cause disruption and therefore should be restricted from doing what "everyone can do". In this case Collect has shown he can assess "obvious vandalism" but, in enough cases to be disruptive, not "obvious BLP violations". I do not know why people are discussing the EW policy 1RR(3RR) at ArbE, that is not what the case sanction is. The sanction reads {{green|"3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism."}}. That seems pretty clear. ]] 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Collect}} Since you want to bring this up again I will reply here although I do not think this is a proper venue. The edits you used at ArbE to support your claim you 'brought up the date early on' were made on and . The evidence phase for the the ArbCom case ended . Since the Evidence phase started on my math says you brought up the issue ~13 <em>hours</em> before the close of a 14 <em>day</em> process. So no apology. <p> I do not know why this timing thing is such a sore point for you. When I brought it up you replied with <blockquote> {{green|"I noted from the get-go that I was going to be away for a substantial period and asked I be given until July to prepare full responses. (reasons include the extended trip and a minor problem called melanoma for which my wife lost about 800 cc of her arm) ... Now I would be impolite left to my own here - but I shall avoid that temptation -- and wish your wife the same health my wife will hopefully have."}} </blockquote> and then and then said I had . While I have not, to the best of my recollection, called you 'an outright liar' I have on several occasions said your statements do not comport with objective reality and then shown, as I have here, with diffs how that is so. <small>(Your post here is a good further example you say I should {{green|"make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time"}} whereas what I said was )</small> To the best of my understanding that is not harassment nor even uncivil. If you have further complaints about me you can A) bring them up with me on my talk page, or B) bring them up, with diffs, at ANI rather than further derail the ARCA discussion. ]] 21:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by JzG ===
It is clear that Collect has misinterpreted the restriction. There are some who consider this to be wilful, others who are inclined to assume good faith, but there is little dissent from the view that he has violated the restriction, whether in good faith or not. I believe there is merit in a reaffirmation that there are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than ''obvious'' vandalism, and that this explicitly includes ] articles. My advice to Collect would be to post BLP violations to the relevant noticeboards rather than risk being accused of violating the restriction. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Brustopher ===
{{Ping|MrX}} Opening an ARCA request against an editor who is ] from you, in relation to an AE request you are not involved in, is in ''incredibly'' poor taste. Surely this should be against some kind of rule? ] (]) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|MrX}} The badness of previous actions (which tbh looking at the AE request are pretty bad) does not change the inappropriateness of this one. From what I can see you haven't even touched the British politics topic area with a 10 inch flagpole in the past. Suddenly Collect is involved and you're filing at ARCA. You're escalating a bad situation. When someone opens an ARCA request against a person they are 1 way banned with, and the request is completely unrelated to that ban, they are baiting (<s>hopefully</s> inadvertently in this case) the editor into breaking that ban. ] (]) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tryptofish ===
I'm very sympathetic to Collect with respect to the two previous AE filings made by an IP who was obviously concealing identity. However, this is a separate issue. ArbCom made an exception for obvious vandalism. BLP violation is a serious problem, but it was not, in this case, obvious vandalism – and ArbCom found problems with Collect using BLP claims inappropriately. I agree with Guy that posting at a notice board is the proper alternative to a second revert. --] (]) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
:@Thryduulf: Just before you made the comment about the interaction ban, that ban was lifted. --] (]) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

=== Collect and others: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Collect and others: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* Collect's track record shows that their judgement of what is and is not a BLP violation correlates poorly with the general consensus, so in my view BLP violations (which are not also obvious vandalism) are not an exception to his restriction. Guy's suggestion is a good one, and it will have the useful side effect of providing easy evidence of improvement in your judgement that you can present at a future appeal of the restriction. Regarding ]'s opening this request, yes it would have been better to let someone else bring it here - the AE thread is not short of people familiar with ARCA - but I don't think anything more than a "please do not do so again" is required. {{replyto|Collect}} you may comment here about specific allegations or comments MrX makes, but you may not comment about MrX nor about the merits or otherwise of your interaction ban with them (if you wish to appeal that, please do so in a separate request for clarity). ] (]) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
*{{u|JzG}} is correct. There are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than unambiguous vandalism, and this includes WP:BLP articles. If Collect becomes aware of something they think should be reverted on BLP grounds, but they cannot do so because of 1RR, they may take it to the relevant noticeboard for community input. This is subject to the concurrent restriction on edits relating to US politics, which applies ''in every namespace.'' -- ] (]) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
* I thought we were pretty clear on this. We made no suggestion that Collect could treat what he saw as BLP violations as vandalism, and 11 of us supported the Finding of Fact that made it clear that his BLP editing was sub-optimal and incorporated a non-NPOV approach. Collect's response doesn't fill me with confidence nor does it approach the issue, but seems to challenge the decision. I'm a bit surprised that he wasn't blocked at AE. We can give him this one pass but only this once, and I would expect that any vandalism revert done by him in the future will be for indubitable vandalism. ] (]) 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
* I agree with Doug here --] &#124; ] 18:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages. ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:]

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#Change the section ''Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement''


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




; Information about amendment request
*Change the section ''Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding: .... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement''
:*to ''Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement will have its own talk page.''


=== Statement by NE Ent ===
The Misplaced Pages watchlist software links talk pages to their corresponding page, so that users monitoring a particular page can be notified of discussion about it. Given that ] ('''WP:AE''') is generally monitored not by arbitrators, but rather dispute resolution volunteers, including the administrators who are expected to enforce committee decisions with ideally, minimal to no involvement from the committee itself, it is counter productive to community discussion to have to host discussions about WP:AE on a page (e.g. ] which may not be watchlisted by the participants.

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
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 amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages.: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages.: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*

----

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: