Revision as of 17:29, 24 August 2011

• 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping

Initiated by Colincbn (talk) at 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

• colincbn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified
• Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified
• Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified

Statement by colincbn

I request clarification of Remedies 4) Article and subject scope. Specifically: "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area."

In practice this is being taken to mean that the Topic Banned parties are able to comment on any RfM, any RfC, or any other new topic as it comes up. In effect not just putting forth their proposals at the beginning of the discussion but their views on the proposals of others. Also Blackash is being asked "direct questions" on her views of the posts of others by a new SPA, thereby allowing her to make her case in response without Slowart being given the same courtesy.

I have noted that in the above ruling it clearly states "allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion". These comments are not proposals, they are not background rational for their proposals, and they are not being made at the commencement of the discussion (note there is a section specifically set aside for this purpose that they have opted not to use).

Also the statement: "This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." seems to rule out Sydney Bluegum as he is not an expert nor has he, or anyone else, ever claimed he is.

I do not think this was the original intended outcome of this ruling, but if it is I am more than happy to stand by that ruling if it is made clear. Colincbn (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Elonka's statement below is an accurate and concise assessment of the situation. Colincbn (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens I would then request the ruling is amended to say:

"Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, to participate in all RfMs, RfCs, or other threads related to the topic, and to answer any queries addressed to them, so long as they keep their posts to 500 words or less. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area."

This would be an accurate description of the current situation, and I would no longer have any issues with its interpretation (the lined out section is simply intended to note that it should be struck, I would not expect that section to actually remain lined out). Not amending this section simply means the ruling, as it stands now, is being ignored. I honestly don't have any problem with the current state of the page, just that the ArbCom ruling specifically spells out what is to happen, yet that is not what is happening. Colincbn (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the only way we can know your desired result is if you tell us what it is. If the current situation is in fact the desired result the wording should be modified to show that. Colincbn (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

Colincbn is in disagreement with how the ArbCom ruling is being interpreted. As an uninvolved administrator monitoring the article, I have interpreted the Article and subject scope remedy as meaning that Slowart, Sydney Bluegum, and Blackash are banned from discussing the naming issue, but are each allowed to make a single statement in those discussions, and then reply to specific queries. As such, when a Requested Move was filed, I allowed each of the three banned editors to make one statement, no more than 500 words, and am allowing them to reply to specific questions. Colincbn, however, disagrees strongly, and is of the opinion that this is not what ArbCom intended, and that the three banned editors should have been limited to participating in the RfC, but not in the RM. There have also been concerns expressed by some of the editors on the page that Sydney Bluegum is a SPA, and should not be allowed to participate at all. A further concern is that one of the editors, ?oygul (talk · contribs) is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet and should therefore be banned from the discussion. However, multiple checkuser requests have been filed, and though there is a possible connection since the account is in the same city as Sydney Bluegum, the account is using a different ISP/computer. I have been monitoring ?oygul's behavior closely, and issued a couple warnings, but ?oygul has been adapting to requests so I have not seen a ban as necessary. It is my opinion that I am interpreting the existing ArbCom ruling correctly, that the discussions on the talkpage are moving slowly forward in a mostly productive manner, and that once the RM is allowed to reach its natural conclusion in a few days, that things should simmer down. Of course, if ArbCom would like to modify the case remedies, I will adapt my monitoring to match. --Elonka 06:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification: Regarding Martin Hogbin's diff of Blackash's comment, I am in agreement that Blackash's language was not appropriate. However, I would also point out that I contacted Blackash with my concerns, and she voluntarily edited her post within the hour, to more appropriate language. So the version that Martin diffed, is not the one that is currently on the live page. Which doesn't mean that Blackash's initial comment was okay, but it does mean that the banned editors appear to be responding fairly well to the ArbCom-authorized administrative supervision. I, as monitoring administrator, have only needed to offer some general nudges and cautions, and no additional bans or blocks have been required so far. --Elonka 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Martin Hogbin

I support Elonka's concerns about ?oygul. There does seem to be an element of gaming the system in which ?oygul allows Blackash to continue her business and personal rivalry with Slowart by asking her specific questions, thus giving her the right to respond. This is not conducive to a rational discussion, neither do I think it is what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond to questions because of 'their experience and familiarity with the area'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens:I think that the comments of Blackash have disrupted the encyclopedia-building process by once again focusing on personal and business rivalry rather than what reliable sources say. Blackash's latest response shows what she thinks other practitioners of the art think about the name of the art, to the detriment of her personal and business rival Slowart. Discussion should not be about this but about what reliable sources say about the name. That discussion has already taken place and there is strong agreement amongst both regular and uninvolved editors that the sources support 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of my diff was not to complain about the language used but to point out that Blackash's comment was simply her opinion on what other practitioners thought. We do not base decisions in WP on what one person thinks another thinks, we base them on what reliable sources say. The problem with allowing this kind of input, especially from a banned editor, is that it disrupts proper discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Slowart

As long as Elonka keeps a close watch on the potential trouble makers (myself included)and is not shy about editing (as done) and blocking if needed, I trust the participating editors will embrace the spirit of, if the letter of the ban. Sometimes a little controlled venting let's the pressure off. Slowart (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see nothing objectively unreasonable in Elonka's interpretation. The point of the remedy was to tone things down so that discussion could continue, without silencing these editors entirely. I'd be interested in hearing if and how the participation that has been allowed has disrupted the encyclopedia-building process and has therefore failed to achieve our desired result. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that Elonka's interpretation of the remedy is eminently reasonable and in line with the committee's intent. — Coren  21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• On balance I agree with Elonka. The remedy's aim was to prevent good-faith comments from being squelched but cut down on opportunities for disruption, and keeping discussions of the involved editors short and succint seems to be the best interpretation of that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Initiated by Fmph (talk) at 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Fmph

Can I direct ArbCom's attention to the first motion in this case. It states that "... no page moves shall be initiated for a period of 2 years" and that ruling is in force until September 18, 2011. Can ArbCom please clarify what they expect to happen on the 18th September?

There have been continued 'suggestions' over the last 23 months that the articles should be moved. So the issue has not gone away. I have made a suggestion (in response to a question as to whether the prohibition should be extended) as to what should happen. If ArbCom think its not a bad idea, perhaps they would like to endorse it, or something like it?

I will notify the project that I have opened this clarification.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I think starting a thread on WT:IECOLL was a good move. I've watchlisted the page and will continue to monitor the discussion. Hopefully the discussion will result in a way forward. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also watching the IECOLL discussion. I cannot say I know much about the current situation so getting more input would be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)