Revision as of 14:04, 22 June 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

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

• Heimstern (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Heimstern

Not entirely sure if this is going to be a request for clarification or amendment, but starting out here. In ARBMAC2, SQRT5P1D2 was topic-banned from all Macedonia-related articles and talk pages. Recently, he began contributing at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which ChrisO, Taivo and I view as a violation of his topic ban (at least the spirit if not the letter). SQRT5P1D2 disagrees, as seen at this request for enforcement. As J.delanoy also feels SQRT5P1D2 is not technically in violation, I'm coming here to ask for clarification. I feel it's abundantly clear that a user banned from talk pages about Macedonia should be equally banned from Misplaced Pages-space pages that are effectively serving in lieu of talk pages for these articles, such as centralized discussion pages. I ask the committee to clarify this and, if necessary, make proper amendments to the case.

• To Coren: Can we then treat this situation that way? I.e., can he be reverted and blocked if he continues, or should we wait for more opinions? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

I agree with Heimstern's assessment. The "Centralized" discussion is in lieu of separate discussions at a variety of articles, so the topic ban should cover that centralized discussion.

Statement by Shadowmorph

I think the topic ban is clear that it is about article space since that was the concern of disruption by this user as it was drafted by the arbitration members. I believe that since many ARBMAC2 parties that were in various way sanctioned by ARBMAC2 did also participate in the centralized discussion it might be the case that this party should be allowed to participate. In any case it was not clear whether that space was covered by his topic ban to suggest that he violated it that. A clarification might be more needed now.Shadowmorph 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the fact that the discussion is not in article space is probably happenstance.

Statement by ChrisO

The fact that the discussion is taking place in the Misplaced Pages namespace rather than article namespace is purely happenstance - the discussion was placed there at my suggestion. It could just as easily have happened in article space. I cannot imagine that the Arbcom meant for SQRT to banned from the discussion if it took place in article space but not if it was in the Misplaced Pages namespace. This strikes me as an instance of a sanctioned user attempting to exploit an apparent loophole to evade his topic ban. Let's not forget, SQRT was sanctioned for going off-wiki to solicit nationalist partisans to participate in Misplaced Pages discussions about Macedonia; he's a single-purpose account entirely focused on the Macedonia naming issue; and he registered his account specifically to agitate about the naming issue, having (so he says) participated as an IP editor before. His willingness to solicit meatpuppets and his utter lack of acceptance that what he did was disallowed indicates that he continues to pose a threat of disruption to the ongoing discussions. His "contribution" in this instance was to delete sourced statements, despite the discussion referees and Rlevse explicitly warning against that kind of behaviour (see here). He's exactly the kind of user we don't want to participate in Macedonia-related topics, whichever namespace they happen to be in. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SQRT5P1D2

ArbCom decided that I should be "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.".

Quoting from the relevant section, "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

Summarising, I was "topic banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages" as these "fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

According to Misplaced Pages, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Misplaced Pages pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes".

The centralised discussion does not fall under the prohibition. It's not an article, but a discussion about the naming of a term in the articles. It belongs to the Misplaced Pages (project) namespace, not the main (article) namespace. It isn't an "article talk page" by definition, as a discussion concerning terminology that will be used in multiple Misplaced Pages namespaces in the future.

Furthermore, my edit was completely justified, as there is not a single reliable verifiable source available to justify a verbal POV claim. I also contributed new data and helped towards a neutral tone in the presentation.

Concluding, while I abide by ArbCom's decision and Misplaced Pages's policies, I expect from users who did much worse than what is claimed that I did, but take part in the discussion, to contribute towards a positive environment. That means making NPOV edits and leave behind the battleground mentality that lead to remedies against them.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• At first glance, it seems clear that this is a violation of the topic ban. Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic. — Coren  10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  At this time, applying the topic ban restrictions to discussion about/within the topic that lie outside article space is appropriate and supported by the decision. I would recommend, given the confusion, that it not be applied retroactively however.

  For the record, a topic or article ban that explicitly includes associated talk page can generally be inferred to include other discussion about those articles that happen lie outside the article talk page proper but are clearly tied to the same topic or area of dispute. — Coren  13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

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

• Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Masem

As one of the current moderators on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to resolve the above, I have noticed behavior that I consider disruptive, and while per the second motion made here (sorry, I cannot find where these have been archived otherwise - the case wasn't amended to include them) gives me the ability to take action, I'd rather verify this first.

User Redking7 has been trying to start a discussion on Republic of Ireland (currently where information about the 26-county state is located), first started here, which expanded out to this much before text was removed. Ok, there's a bunch of crap happening here, but sticking to the point that ArbCom is involved, Redking's attempt to rename the ROI article at the time discussion was going on clearly (to me) is against the case's first motion from here (in that Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Now, I'm willing to give a benefit of a doubt to some degree: the above motion closed on June 12th, Redking7's suggestion opened on June 6th and it looks like it may have been spurred by that. However, Redking7 continues to argue over the details of this (see comments from this diff as well as discussion here.

I personally see this as rules-lawyering (the intent of what ArbCom wants seems perfectly clear), but rather than act first, ask questions later, I will assume good faith for now but seek ArbCom's clarification if discussion about the renaming of individual articles that are part of the Ireland naming issue can be discussed on those individual talk pages or should they be brought to the Ireland Collaboration project. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

BACKGROUND/FACTS: I have been told by other editors that “ArbCom” has made rules saying:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Moderators of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

On the basis of the above, a discussion I started on Talk: Republic of Ireland concerning the title name was archived. I disputed the interpretation put on the above stating that the discussion I had started:

1. did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
2. the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration;

and on that basis discussion should be allowed to continue.

Notwithstanding the explanations I gave, Masem insists I have broked ArbCom rules and said he/she was giving me his/her “only warning”.

MISINTERPRETATION OF RULES: I believe Masem has misinterpreted the ArbCom rules (and others have indicated some support for me on this). Notably, Does ArbCom wish WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:

1. it is a golden rule of Misplaced Pages that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
2. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
3. there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
4. on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
5. many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
6. similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
7. such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Statement by SlimVirgin

I have a question about the use of checkuser in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. We've had several ArbCom cases triggered by these articles, the latest of which was settled a month ago with several topic bans. There was talk about how these could be enforced, and whether checkuser could be used more liberally than normal, but nothing came of it, so far as I know.

I'm therefore submitting this to ask that the ArbCom authorize checkusers to use the tool more liberally when it comes to these articles, and not to require a specific suspicion regarding who might be behind the checked accounts.

We have a number of accounts hanging around— some new, some set up before the ArbCom case but not used much—who are arriving to thwart normal editing in various ways. One of them, User:Hadashot Livkarim (talk · contribs), was recently found to belong to NoCal100 (talk · contribs), who had been topic-banned during the recent case. Under the current rules, it is difficult to get a CU done unless we already think we know who the account belongs to. I have just requested a CU on LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs), an obvious sock or meatpuppet, and was told by a clerk that it would violate the "no-fishing" rule: see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuvGoldStar. But I have no idea who's behind it, and it really doesn't matter. If we can't act against an account like that, then we're basically powerless to stop the kind of highly partisan editing the latest ArbCom case acted against. Editors on the I/P pages shouldn't be expected to spend hours or days analysing edits to come up with a suspicion to justify a CU, when it's obvious at a glance that the account isn't a legitimate one.

Two things would help enormously: (1) if checkusers could be told the normal "no fishing" policy is eased when it comes to I/P articles, and (2) if admins could be reminded that checkuser and other evidence isn't always necessary: that if a new account, or an account with very few edits, is acting in a highly partisan manner on the I/P pages, admins may consider blocking it under the reasonable suspicion that it's a topic-banned editor returned, or an account acting as a meatpuppet. SlimVirgin 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by IronDuke

I don't see this as being particularly useful, aside from it violating WP:AGF andWP:BITE. You will, at best, generate a more sophisticated generation of socks. Why not use the ARBPIA sanction process already in place? Indeed, I wonder why it wasn't used on the editors involved in the Judea Samaria case -- much needless waste of talent on both sides would have been avoided, as well as the apparently very great temptation to sock. IronDuke 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

I'm interested in this proposal primarily because of its applicability to two cases in which I was involved, in which sock- or meatpuppetry was a significant issue - Scientology and Macedonia. Sockpuppetry was one of the main issues in the Scientology case and led directly to the IP ban of editors from Church of Scientology networks. In the Macedonia case, there was clear evidence of editors seeking to recruit meatpuppets off-wiki. In both cases, a number of long-term partisan editors were topic-banned or given lengthy blocks. There is a high likelihood of further sockpuppeting in both cases. SlimVirgin's proposal would be a useful way of dealing with this eventuality. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

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

• Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting clarification for the wording of the terms of my soon-to-be mentorship.

In term B of "Mythdon restricted and placed under mentorship", it states "Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior". I am confused as to who this is referring to. The confusion is is that the word "their" refers to multiple other people, but it's clear that in the other restriction(s), the word discusses me as evidenced by their wording. However, I am not certain as to what the word means in this term (term B). Here's the question: Does "their" in term B refer to issues regarding my editing/behavior or other editors editing/behavior?

I am also asking for clarification on the wording of term C. It states "During mentorship, Mythdon is restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages if not approved by their mentor" - In regards to "abusive warnings", does this go for all warnings, or does it simply go for warnings (i.e. my past warnings to admins/rollbackers about their use of rollback) that were judged to be abusive? The word "abusive" raises questions, and did raise a similar questions here, but that doesn't clarify my question. As an unrelated note, while my next statement here would not deal with something that needs any clarification, if anyone ever asks, as a result of arbitrator FayssalF's statement "After all, you'll be consulting with him before making any edit to anyone's talk page", besides my own talk page, I have made absolutely zero edits to user talk namespace since the closure of the case.

While you may find this request for clarification a bit ridiculous, please seriously consider clarifying.

If any other editor has additional questions regarding this or any other remedy, please do so. It may very well clarify something that I thought was some other way.

No, I have not found or attempted to find a mentor yet, in case an arbitrator asks me. If I do get assigned a mentor (which will most certainly likely happen), and if I edit during the mentorship, these are things I need to know before any interpretations are made. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note by Mythdon

I would like to remind Risker and Newyorkbrad that before acting as arbitrators in this request, that they recused themselves from the relevant case voluntarily. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions by Mythdon

In term D, it states:

Mythdon shall not comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about Ryulong on any page in Misplaced Pages until a mentor is appointed and may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.

While this term only covers comments about the user, I am unsure as to whether comments to the user apply as well. Does this also apply to interactions? I believe so. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

After the mentors appointment, in regards to "...may only comment after the appointment with his mentor's prior approval.", would this "approval" approve of all future comments to/about Ryulong without further approvals or would I have to gain approval for every single comment? My suspicions are leaning towards "...approval for every single comment". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-statement by Stifle

Regarding the first point, I hate to say it, but I told you so. :)

As you were. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Recused - Tiptoety 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recused - MBisanz 08:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Regarding clause (b), "their" refers to your (Mythdon's) editing; see singular they.
• Regarding clause (c), if you (Mythdon) are uncertain whether an intended warning is abusive, you are to consult your mentor. The onus to avoid borderline behavior is on you at this point. Kirill  12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding clause (d): yes, you are restricted in terms of making any comment to Ryulong as well as making any comment about Ryulong. Kirill  01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• I wasn't planning on looking at this, let alone commenting on it, but Mythdon is correct that I had recused in the original case, so I will formally recuse from this as well. Risker (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recused. (Don't worry, I wouldn't have forgotten.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Kirill succinctly makes the point. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Kirill's comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Also concur with Kirill.  Roger Davies 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Kirill as well. Wizardman 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Kirill phrases it well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)