This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 12 August 2013 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: further comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARCA

• 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 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:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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-llists.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

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Clarification request: Science Apologist topic ban

Initiated by Someone not using his real name (talk) at 21:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

• Someone not using his real name (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Casliber (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notification
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notification
• Previously ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notification

Statement Someone not using his real name

Arbitrator Cas Liber has declared here that the Committee has vacated the indefinite (extended from the original one-year) topic ban affecting Science Apologist. Is that the opinion/decision of the majority of the Committee? (Original one-year topic ban; Extension thereof to indefinite) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by IRWolfie-

@Courcelles, I think you are looking at Casliber's comment in isolation. It is because of the specific circumstances of the community unblock, where multiple individuals highlighted SAs work on fringe theory topics as being desirable, that the topic ban should have been automatically vacated. As far as I can see, Casliber is not referring to the act of ARBCOM referring it to the community as vacating the topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Err, for the record, I made this statement as an editor. Anyway, moot now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Speaking for myself, I do not think we have vacated the topic ban on pseudoscience, and that it remains in place as an AE (not ArbCom) sanction. (I also do not see any real discussion of the topic ban either way on either the recent RFARB or AN unblock discussions.) (Thus subject to the AE routes of appeal, which are more numerous than for a direct sanction from ArbCom.) Courcelles 23:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note that this is all rather moot by the imposing admin lifting the topic ban on AN. "The topic ban is lifted with retroactive effect to the time of the unblock. T. Canens (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)". As he imposed the topic ban, he can vacate it. So, DS remain in effect, but no topic ban. Courcelles 00:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Is the question whether the recent AN evaluation of ScienceApologist's block appeal would also, if closed in favour of the proposal, have vacated his topic ban? The answer to that is clearly no. The proposal was to unblock SA, not to unblock him and remove all sanctions from his account. A new thread should be started to discuss vacating the AE topic ban of SA's account. (It also occurs to me that letting a contributor back onto the project, then after a period of observation letting him return to a contentious topic area, is a reasonable and sensible approach – but that isn't what we are being asked to consider.) AGK 14:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• However, the comment by T. Canens, which Courcelles quotes above, would render the question moot. I missed that because the original poster didn't link to TC's comment in his statement. AGK 14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Amendment request: Argentine History

Initiated by MarshalN20 | at 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Case affected

Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Basalisk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Basalisk

Information about amendment request

• You should this yourselves...()
• Allow me to work on Falkland Islands history-related sections under the supervision of Basalisk (administrator, Falklands contributor).

Statement by your MarshalN20

I have been working on an improvement for the Falkland Islands article (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4).

1. I asked User:NuclearWarfare about what steps to take in order to clean my name. He told me to pick a controversial article, so I went with the Falkland Islands article.
2. During this month, I have managed to improve and re-structure the article to a high quality. I only need to work on the history sections (I consider the "sovereignty dispute" section also as history-related).
3. Now I would like to have an amendment that allows me to work on history-related sections on the Falklands article.

Pretty simple. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Brad, although I wholeheartedly appreciate the consideration, I am saddened that you are still seeing the perspective of a blatantly vengeful editor (Lecen) whose edit history exemplifies his own statement ("these kind of editors won't change their behavior").

For example, what purpose does Lecen's statement have other than to prevent me from demonstrating (through actions) that I am not the devil he painted me out to be in the Arbcomm case?

Also, how can my appeal reflect an understanding of the "arbitrators' concerns" if the only arbitrator who was kind enough to sincerely communicate with me was User:NuclearWarfare? And even NuclearWarfare was concerned about saying too much because he did not want his statements to reflect what the rest of you thought (which remains a complete mystery to me).

What I understood from NuclearWarfare is that, believing Lecen's assertions, you concluded that I was a POV-editor with an agenda. I assume that the topic ban was broad ("Latin American history") because you believed his assertions that I somehow have been a nuisance at articles such as Falklands War (where you can't even find me on the first page of contributors: ), War of the Pacific (which I haven't bothered to focus on in months), War of the Triple Alliance (where I really only edited the talk page), and Juan Manuel de Rosas (despite I only copy-edited the article; I never edited a single source into that article).

If that is the case, then the "arbitrators' concerns" are all based on falsehoods. I only regret that all of you keep refusing to see the facts and, instead, continue believing what is stated by Lecen.--MarshalN20 | 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Lecen, could you please show a single diff where I (not Cambalachero) knowingly add a "fascist source" to any article? Otherwise, your statement breaks the "casting aspersions" principle from the Arbcomm case (see ) and the "proposed remedy" warning made to you (see ). I kindly request arbitrators to take action on this matter.--MarshalN20 | 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@David, given enough rope, the Incas made pretty good bridges. --MarshalN20 | 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Arbitrators, I am requesting to edit the article Falkland Islands (not Falklands War, where my only interest in it is the "secret" participation of Peru and Chile). I am requesting to edit the Falkland Islands article solely because, as a previous dispute resolution arbitrator on it (see User:MarshalN20/sandbox), I successfully managed to help opposing sides of the dispute reach a fruitful solution. I must re-emphasize that the claims accusing me of being a disruptive editor in Falklands War are a complete lie (again, please see ). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@AGK, you have been awfully unfair to me throughout this whole situation and continuously shown a strong favoritism towards Lecen. The comment you quote from me is a response to Lecen's aggressive declarations that included uncalled personal attacks. Not only that, but Lecen continues his relentless baiting against me (see , where he edits out a war name which I had previously included and that he had opposed without success). I actually care about the quality of Misplaced Pages...and that's the only "baggage" I have ever carried around with me. You may turn a blind eye to Lecen and other truly disruptive editors, but please don't expect me to do the same.--MarshalN20 | 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Arbitrators, I'll further add that this is not a request to continue interacting with Lecen. In fact, both Salvio and NuclearWarfare have proposed we keep a informal interaction ban. Moreover, as Cambalachero explains, Lecen has no significant activity on topics related to the Falkland Islands. I would understand AGK's position if I was requesting to end an interaction ban with Lecen, but that is not the case. AGK is mixing my view towards Lecen with my request to edit an article where I would not interact at all with Lecen (thereby, making AGK's argument a logical fallacy). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Arbitrators, thanks for trusting me. I promise to not let you down.--MarshalN20 | 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Basalisk

I just wanted to point out that in response to Marshal's proposal, I merely agreed in principle to act as the "supervisor" suggested by NuclearWarfare. I don't have anything to say on whether or not the committee should make an amendment or not. Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lecen

I'd like to remind you all that neither MarshalN20 nor Cambalachero have expressed any regret for their actions. In fact, both have shown that they do not believe that they did anything wrong and that the ArbCom was unfair to them. "What bothers me the most is that you also received the punishment for no other reason than having a different point of view from the other editor. It's completely ludicrous" See User talk:Cambalachero#Re: Hello, as well as User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 6#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed ("Despite never being uncivil (an arbitrator even used the funny term "Civil POV-pusher" to describe me), and merely deserving of a WP:TROUT, I was topic banned from Latin American history for a year.") And most important of all, see the entire Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision.

If you're willing to allow two editors who never demonstrated any regret to edit controversial articles, or even to narrow the topic ban, be sure of what you're doing because experience tells that these kind of editors won't change their behavior. --Lecen (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Do you really expect to see two editors who used unreliable sources written by Fascists with the purpose of political propaganda to "bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing"? Even more when these editors never showed any regret nor acknowledgement of their wrong actions? --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cambalachero

I would like to point that MarshalN20 has requested a controversial article because NuclearWarfare suggested him to do so. See User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 38#MarshalN20. There's no need to guess in advance if he would do a good or bad work in it: that article has been edited by 2073 different editors, and the talk page by 519 different editors. If he tries to do something wrong, or to introduce bias in either direction, he would be noticed immediately. If he has no hidden agenda, then the many editors that watch that article will be watching him and won't find anything wrong, and his edit history would proceed without problems. As for Lecen, he should drop the stick: he has never been interested in editing the articles of the Falkland Islands. If that article becomes good or featured with this trial period for MarshalN20, then it would be something positive for everybody.

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When we voted on the original case, my personal view (not shared by most of my colleagues) was that the topic-ban might be a bit overbroad. The point here is to channel MarshallN20's contributions away from the areas in which he had difficulty in the past, in areas where he will use high-quality sources and avoid any form of tendentious editing. It is my experience that geographical areas of disputed sovereignty (Falkland Islands/Malvinas, Gibraltar, Liancourt Rocks, etc.) bring out the worst rather than the best in some editors, and so it might not be the first area to which I would point someone looking for a non-contentious piece of Latin American history to edit about. But given that the topic-area is circumscribed, the request bears consideration. Awaiting any further statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand Lecen's point, but at the end of the day, our focus is on bringing about high-quality, unbiased editing, not on editors' internal assent to the merits of our decisions. It would have been better if these appeals had reflected some understanding of the concerns that led to our decision, but I do not consider it indispensable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to support such an amendment, with the understanding that the supervisor may reimpose the full topic ban, without having to seize ArbCom. We have two possible outcomes here: either MarshallN20 behaves and so the encyclopaedia is improved, or he doesn't, in which case blocks (and restrictions) are cheap. Salvio 23:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• My sentiments mirror Salvio's almost exactly. The expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" seems a bit harsh, but I think when applied to Misplaced Pages it generally encourages people to assume good faith and give people a chance to prove themselves, rather than hoping they will fail. Also agree with the point that a reblock will not require arbs to intervene. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Motion 1: MarshalN20

Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. Proposed. NW (Talk) 13:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Fixed War --> Islands. NW (Talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
3. Noting that editing in this contentious area (by all editors) should live up to high standards under applicable policies and guidelines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
4. Salvio 21:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
5. With reservations, given the extreme recency of the case. Whether the lesson has taken is easier judged in the work, than in force-feeding MarshalN20 lines to say here, so let us see. Courcelles 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
6. Worm(talk) 11:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Kirill  11:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I accept how reasonably Marshal has put forward his case here. However, Falklands War is a contentious article with a subject that is currently (albeit slowly) developing. Also, I am unimpressed by Marshal's comment, "what purpose does Lecen's statement have other than to prevent me from demonstrating (through actions) that I am not the devil he painted me out to be in the Arbcomm case?". From it we can infer, in my view, that Marshal is still carrying an awful lot of baggage from the original arbitration case (though so too is Lecen, as his statement similarly demonstrates). I therefore do not consider this motion to be a worthwhile risk. AGK 15:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
2. T. Canens (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

Clarification request: Argentine history

Initiated by Cambalachero (talk) at 03:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Cambalachero

In the case Argentine history I have been topic banned from all pages related to the history of Latin America. I also edit articles on modern politics, and I want to know how much back in time can I go before politics turn into history. I asked it to NuclearWarfare (here, he told me that the last 15 years would be acceptable, but advised as well to clarify this, to avoid misunderstandings. My idea would be to work with the presidency of Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007-today), and the events that took place in them. More or less, the last decade.

I may also work with articles that are clearly not historical, but may need to mention a small detail about history. For example, when I wrote about the actor Roberto Carnaghi (which I wrote before the ban), I mentioned a historical period and something that was going on by then, without much detail, to describe his character in a telenovela. If I work with articles on heavy metal bands, I may need to point the censorship they received during the military government, or their problems during the 1989 or 2001 economic crisis. In those cases, if the description is kept short and to the point, only the basic info needed for the non-historical article, would it be acceptable?

By the way, contrary to the misplaced comments of another user, I'm not requesting any amendment to the ban, just a clarification on the actual extension of the current ban. Cambalachero (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As for dates, the usual turning points in contemporary Argentine history are 1983 (end of military regime and return of democracy), 1989 (hyperinflation, fall of Alfonsín, and begin of Menemism) and 2001 (new economic and political crisis, fall of De la Rúa); sometimes 2001 is mentioned in conjuction with 2003 (begin of Kirchnerism). Those are the natural turning points, easier to work with than if we set a random date from out of the blue. I once organized Argentine history by periods and used the 1983-present period as the last one (see {{ARGhistperiodFooter}} and Category:History of Argentina by period), nobody ever complained about it.

I rarely work with the modern politics of other South American countries, only when there's some event in the current news that is so important that it becomes eligible for the "in the news" section of the main page (such as the death of Hugo Chávez, or the impeachment of Fernando Lugo), and my interest goes away once the news become yesterday's news. If the limit is set simply on the bilateral relations of Argentina at whatever administrations are acceptable to work with, that would be fine for me. Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Raúl Alfonsín began his mandate as president on December 10, 1983. That day the National Reorganization Process ended. When we say "1983" in this discussion, we are saying that date, December 10 of 1983. I hope this precision helps. Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20

This is a much-discussed topic in the field. However, colleagues and professors alike often consider anything starting from 1980 (or 1985) to be "contemporary history". I would suggest the arbitrators to not only clarify this but also amend the case with a statement that exempts contemporary history from the topic ban. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I am completely uninvolved with this topic area, but I agree that a clarification is needed. The history of most countries and regions is divided into conventinal eras. If there is a consensus among reliable sources on such conventional eras then the cutoff should be set at one of those. If there is not, then based solely on the present state of the History of South America and History of Argentina articles it would seem that the latest reasonable cut-off date would be 1998 (election of Hugo Chávez). Looking specifically at Argentina, 1983 (end of the military dictatorship) would seem logical and workable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions for Cambalachero

1. Do you have any date(s) in mind (to any degree of specificity)?
2. I can see two possible opions, a cut-off date that is the same across the continent even that might not be logical in a given country or individual dates for each country that would be more complex to remember and administer. Do you have a preference? If so how strong (i.e. you wouldn't accept your non-preferred choice for $reason)?
3. 1983 for Argentina, and no later than 1998 for the entire continent were my initial thoughts (see immediately above). Do you have comments on those dates?
4. Do you see dates specified just as years (implied as 1 January that year) as working, or do you think an actual date needs noting?

To the arbs: If/when you decide on a date, please be clear whether that date is inclusive or exclusive of the range covered by the ban. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur. Awaiting any further statements containing reasoned suggestions as to when that would be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the statements above, a ≥1983 stipulation seems workable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree. As far as Argentina goes, everything after 1983 (with 1983 being included) should be fair game. Salvio 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• This is a little specialised for me, so I will abstain and defer to my colleagues on how to dispose of this request. AGK 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• The December date as suggested by Cambalachero seems fine. Just try to skirt away from that as much as you can and I don't anticipate any significant issues. The problems observed by the Committee were quite distant from the Kirchner presidencies, so I wouldn't anticipate any problem working on those articles. NW (Talk) 23:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)