Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke | 16 September 2024 | 4/0/0 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Request for clarification: DIGWUREN | none | none | 15 October 2010 |
| Request for clarification: EEML | none | none | 7 October 2010 |
| Request for clarification: Speed of light | none | none | 26 September 2010 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: DIGWUREN
Initiated by Petri Krohn (talk) at 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Petri Krohn
I am seeking clarification on whether this edit I made yesterday to Mass killings under Communist regimes a) constitutes edit warring, b) is a part of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or c) is unrelated to any ongoing edit war in the article.
The article is under discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case limiting editors to 1RR per day.
I try to maintain a 0 RR policy on disputed topics – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. The edit war on the Mass killings under Communist regimes started October 13 and resulted in nine blind reverts by a total of six different editors. A complete list of the edits is available in in my comment on the related arbitration enforcement thread. My edits to the article were intended to stop the ongoing edit war by finding and proposing a suitable compromise wording. In the half an hour it took for me to check that my first edit was supported by facts the article went through two more rounds of edit warring.
I believe both my edits were allowed by WP:BRD, more specifically Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is – a Wikipedia policy that excludes the BRD cycle from edit warring. None of the material I added has ever been disputed; the fact that R. J. Rummel sees a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing is the only thing all editors working on the article have been able to agree on.
Here are three diffs related to my second edit:
- the edit itself
- diff from my previous edit in the same section
- diff from the disputed content edit warred over
The diffs shows three words in common with my first edit and one word in common with the disputed content.
On a general note, I would like the arbitration committee to specify, if the following two statements are a correct interpretation of the relevant policies, Wikipedia:Edit warring and WP:3RR
- 3RR only applies to edit warring; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not edit warring and is not subject to 1 / 3RR restrictions.
- An edit should be considered part of the BRD cycle and not edit warring, if it addresses a substantial objection raised by another editor (weasel words, BLP violation) – even if it retains a large part of the challenged content.
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Vecrumba
I have noticed "BRD" being used to spin-doctor (my perception) reverts as being something else. (Diffs are not material, I'm not here to litigate any particular instance.) Where a BRD sets off an edit/revert war, I can see the original BRD being exempt from the edit revert chain, but only as long as:
- the original BRD itself is not re-inserted, substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) from its initial instantiation; and
- where there is no initial BRD, "BRD" is not invoked to reinsert substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) content from earlier instantiations of versions which comprise an edit war already in progress.
In either event: reinserting an (initial) BRD in a chain of reverts or claiming BRD within a chain of reverts, the claim for "BRD" is nullified, as to not do so would encourage editors to circumvent #RR restrictions by offering the revert "advantage" to any editor who is first out of the gate to claim "BRD." I would like to know if my interpretation is correct. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The corollary here is that claiming "BRD" to side-step rules on edit-warring may be construed as Wiki-lawyering. Edit-warring trumps BRD, not BRD trumps edit-warring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
The proimary issue is that where an article is clearly and multiply marked as "1RR", is it proper to assert "BRD" when the (at least partial) contents of two reverts clearly have been on and off reverted in the past? Where such a warning is not clearly marked (which has certainly been the case in the past) I would think the argument of BRD had merit. However, the case in hand does not have the benefit of that caution at all.
There is another issue -- has "Digwuren" now been excessively stretched? I have just been officially "warned" which means I can not edit anything about the London victory parade of 1946 -- an article I did not even know existed! Where "Digwuren" is thus so stretched, ought Arbcom sua sponte consider limiting that decision which has now been stretched more than a Hefty bag in a commercial? Collect (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Generally speaking, edit-warring is a pattern of conduct; it is difficult to say whether a single, isolated edit constitutes edit-warring. From your description of the context, I would say that you inserted yourself in an ongoing edit war, if nothing else; this may or may not have been a good decision on your part, and may or may not be considered sanctionable behavior by administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions in this area.
As far as your other question is concerned, 3RR (and similar rules) apply to any revert, whether it is part of a BRD cycle, a blind revert, or something else; engaging in BRD does not grant an exemption from revert limitations, and one can still be engaged in edit-warring even if BRD is offered—rightly or wrongly—as an excuse. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for clarification: EEML
Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk at 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Piotrus
I am seeking a clarification of the topic ban currently in effect to my person that states: "[I am] topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed".
Few days ago I asked a public question of the Committee here, proposing a potential solution for the ongoing disputes in EE area. I did so believing that a good-faithed comment on how to improve dispute resolution (not concerning articles) does not violate my topic ban. Now I have second thoughts, and I would appreciate a ruling on whether I was allowed to post there on this subject and whether I can keep participating in the discussion (or should I self-revert all my edits there?).
My rationale for thinking I am allowed to start and participate in that discussion is as follows:
- it is not a process discussion about EE content (I am topic banned from "articles about Eastern Europe" and discussions of them), but a (good-faithed, no-parties named) discussion about generic editor behavior in that area and how it may be improved. I always understood the "process discussions" part of the ban as ban from content-related things like AfDs, FAs, WikiProject pages and such, and the word "same" to refer to any "articles about EE", but not a ban from being able to discuss the EEML case itself (which would obviously prevent me from feeling the amendment or clarification requests) and wider, non-article specific circumstances surrounding it (which is what that particular discussion is);
- my thoughts are based on the discussion(s) seen at my Amendment request, where I am obviously allowed to post, but which is not the best place for threaded discussion, hence another place had to be found and I concluded that the public Committee discussion page is the best forum for it;
- it is a question directed (publicly) to the Committee, on the official Committee pages, hence I hope it is obvious it was never intended to be a "topic ban evasion" or such;
Hence I believe my post there and subsequent comments do not violate my topic ban. Would this be a correct belief?
If my participation in that thread is not proper, I am ready to self-revert at any time. Also, till such a time as there is consensus here that I can participate there, I will not do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Strictly speaking, this is a violation of the ban. That said, good faith dispute resolution is generally considered an exception and I would be disinclined to pursue a sanction in a case like this even though it doesn't exactly qualify. On the third hand, the entire EE area suffers from waaaay too much bickering and the topic bans were made to help the participants disengage.
In other words, it was okay-ish enough; discussing other involved editors (specifically or obliquely) is a very bad idea, but I'm not about to curtail genuine attempts to improve the area. Thread carefully, and remain constructive and I doubt you'll find opposition. — Coren (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Generally agree with Coren here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Speed of light
Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: [[1]]
- Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Statement by Hell in a Bucket
There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in recent discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. [[2]]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Risker, I can understand the meatpuppet part of things. Hadn't really thought of it that way. This however is only one instance that the whiff of puppetry has been shown. Is there anything else? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Reply to WGFInley Your blaming me for beseting you when clearly you did not research the issue fully and is pretty amusing. Maybe you should look, read then and only then block. You want to get to the nitty gritty you performed a poor admin action, poorly thought through and not at all researched. It is hardly meatpuppetry to contest a bad block. If this was the case every thread asking for a block review on ANI is meatpuppetry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Count Iblis
Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and he didn't see any problems.
Detailed explanations and responses
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert here a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
More to the point (replying to Protonk was a huge diversion, but unfortunately it is necesary to waste a huge amount of time to not let false claims go unchallenged), the nature of the topic area (physics, not politics) and my contributions to this topic area (I have made many edits of a technical nature) should have made it clear that there cannot be any "advocacy" to speak of as far as editing articles is concerned. No hair on my head would even think of arguing for Brews topic ban to be lifted/shortened/modified or whatever, if I didn't believe that he can do something useful here. Lately, I've tried to convice Brews that he is the ideal person to make good quality contributions to WikiBooks. This whole overreaction about my actions doesn't bode well for the climate change case. If straightforward issues cannot be assessed and acted on properly, then there is zero chance things will go well after the climate change concludes and the discretionary sanctions regime comes into force. I predict the same mess as we've seen on the General Sanctions board. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Obviously ArbCom has forseen the possibility of the trouble I'm referring to above and this is why Remedy 3 is being proposed also for good editors like Polargeo and KimDabelsteinPetersen, but I don't think that will matter much. Count Iblis (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
- The reality that many people see advocacy/meatpuppetry for Brews
That's perhaps the case, but it is always without evidence. The core part of Wikipedia are its articles, and there clearly haven't been any problems there. There are no brainless defenses of Brews edits, like reverting to Brews version without good arguments (I think I only made one revert to a verson preferred by Brews in the last few months for good reasons). Then on peripheral issues in meta discussions etc. one can get certain perceptions, but then that part of Wikipedia is similar to any other social medium where false ideas can easily spread and take hold. Compare to Obama not being born in the US, User talk:Orly taitz is quite sure about this. Count Iblis (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- What Arbcom previously found
Please carefully read on the speed of light ArbCom file the Findings of Facts, the discussions and the final decision of the Arbitrators leading them to impose the advocacy restriction. What you find is.... well, uhm...... nothing, nada, zilch. ArbCom passed the moton without any discussions or any findings, they just did this to have a quiet period surrounding Brews. Brews topic ban as to be lifted in 90 days and in hat 90 day period no disputes should not escalate.
While I disagreed with being restricted, I also decided to stick to this and not try to contest it (which would have been rather difficult anyway, give that the restriction barred me from talking about Brews in any way). But, given that there was no normal case in which evidence was presened to motivate this decision and that no defense was mounted, one cannot now invoke the mere fact that the restriction was imposed as strong evidence that there had been improper behavior. You really have to point to diffs from late last year or early this year to directly point out bad behavior. That's also in general the right thing to do; I'm always willing to discuss and accept criticisms about specific things I am alledged/judged to have done wrong.
In general, I would say that on Wikipedia, simply agreeing to disagree and moving forward is a good thing. Typically, in ArbCom cases, ArbCom can decide that someone who hasn't actually done a lot wrong, should stay out of area X to keep the peace (the situation can be polarized and "being right" isn't always the same as "being helpful"). Accepting such a decision should be promoted, precisely because it goes against natural instinct not to "defend your rights". But if history is later going to be rewritten along the lines of: "There was so much disruption and bad behavior that ArbCom took the unprecendented step of barring that editor from being involved in area X", in order to argue that present behavior which is normal for any other editor is not ok. for the editor in question, then this will undermine the whole idea of editors agreeing to move on. Count Iblis (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Brews ohare
The position of Risker echoed by SirFozzie is unsupported nonsense. As I was to be absent for several weeks, and expected Blackburne to recommend an article for deletion that I had created just prior to leaving, I asked Count Iblis to link my support for the article on its Talk page should the AfD arise. That is all that was meant by his "acting as my advocate", an unfortunate choice of words. He was simply a messenger. Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Risker & SirFozzie have decided to represent any support of myself in arbitration as "meatpuppetry", depicting dissent as a violation of WP policy. Now WGFinley adduces as "contextual" support the short response time of Dr K in drawing attention to Finley's unwarranted block, not of myself but of Count Iblis. Wow, what a generous apology for thoughtless behavior! On reflection, these administrators' "meatpuppetry" campaign sounds like a great precedent to bring up against my (speedy) detractors in these arbitration brouhahas, should these innuendos ultimately find traction. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Although Protonk disavows any connection between advocacy and motive, it is apparent that the enforcement of a ban against advocacy would be unnecessary if it were thought that simple statement of of arguments supporting a point of view were involved. Rather, this ArbCom action suppressing advocacy supposes some objectionable disruption that must be stopped, which as it happens was never the case. This ban was censorship of dissent, not an action to protect WP. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The recent comment by Shell accuses H in a B and Count Iblis of "routinely" showing up to "defend" Brews. That characterization should be examined more closely. The appearance of H in a B and Count Iblis in disputes involving me never has been "routine" (suggesting no thought went into it, it was just matter of course) and never has been a "defense of Brews" (suggesting that their entry is only because it is myself involved, and nothing else). In contrast to the incorrect claim that these editors say that "I can do no wrong", these editors have in fact often suggested to me means to reconcile my difficulties, ranging from leaving to go to Citzendieum or to Wikibooks, to other recommendations (like mentoring) should I wish to stay put on WP. Shell should re-examine the history of events.
I wish I could say that it is amazing that administrators, with important responsibilities to be accurate in their statements and to consider carefully the facts, often do neither. It is unfortunate to see once more a simple appeal for clarification being perverted to become a retrial of past behavior, and made into an effort to wedge open the door to extended sanctions. It is one more example of something I have come reluctantly to understand - never, never, never go to arbitration. Whatever you want to discuss or clarify will not be addressed: instead the occasion will be recast by old adversaries to extract another pound of flesh and enjoy old-fashioned revenge in a venue where fact, fairness and the good of WP have no bearing. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case. It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy). I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors . When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by WGFinley
I was recently working on the AE case involving Brews referenced earlier. I saw Count Iblis' advocacy statement there and misread the status of the numerous sanctions on this case. I thought that Count was still prohibited from advocacy of Brews and I blocked him for 24 hours and notified him on his talk page. Within 20 minutes of this action my talk page was beset by multiple parties namely Dr.K and Hell In A Bucket. After things calmed down a bit I was able to determine the sanctions were lifted and I removed the block.
I wish to chime in for two reasons:
- The decision page for this case is virtually impossible for an admin trying to do his job to follow. There needs to be a way to either rollup or break out sanctions that have been rescinded, modified, etc.
- I am unfamiliar with the totality of this case and its numerous changes but one thing remains clear, it appears several users are acting in concert, whether that is to the level of being a meatpuppet for Brews I leave that for the committee to decide. --WGFinley (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Response to Dr.K
First, my apologies for not notifying you I thought you were already mentioned and clearly you were not, that was my mistake.
Having done a lot of admin work in conflict areas like Palestine-Israel, a bit in Macedonia, you see patterns as I do here. In this case I blocked a user and two other users, very familiar with the status of various sanctions, came to his defense within minutes (the number, timing and Hell's initial demeanor inspired my choice of the word "beset") before he even spoke for himself. In and of itself it's not necessarily proof of anything. However, in context, it could further substantiate the tag team and meatpuppet concerns Arbcom previously found concerning Brews and thus levied sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Dr.K.
I just read the statement above by WGFinley and I felt that I had to ask for a clarification. I was not planning to attend this particular activity but the statement above is sufficiently unclear in my opinion to require some explanation. So I ask, is WGFinley implying that I had some connection with HIaB in acting to alert him about Count Iblis' wrongful block? Did I do something wrong in trying to alert him? Am I somehow under suspicion? I thought that through my exchanges with WGFinley and after numerous clarifications between us and some apologies the matter was settled. Now I see that I am mentioned by him in some vague statements. I am disappointed to see this but I hope it is a misunderstanding on my part of the statement by WGFinley. I also hope that the vagueness of WGFinley's statements about me is not intentional. I also strongly object to WGFinley's use of the verb "beset" which has a primary dictionary definition of "to attack on all sides; assail; harass: to be beset by enemies; beset by difficulties." If informing an admin in good faith for the plight of a wrongfully blocked fellow editor is translated as "besetting" said admin this reflects very sadly indeed on good faith communication between editors on Wikipedia. I can assure him that if he thinks that I beset his talkpage by letting him know about the wrongfulness of the block that I will never visit his talkpage again. I am simply not interested in communicating with anyone who thinks that I beset their talkpage just by trying to correct an obvious error by leaving a brief and polite message. I hope that such use of the verb "beset" does not imply that there should be a class system under which the plebeian common editors are reminded they had better mind their own business and not upset the ruling admin aristocracy by trying to communicate with them, even in the face of wrongful blocks. Finally is it customary for a non-participating user to be mentioned in a hearing and not get a courtesy notice about it on their talkpage? I do hope I get some straight answers as much as I hope my forced participation in this hearing to be as brief as possible. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Response to WGFinley
Thank you for your non-reply. Unfortunately you just verified my worst fears about your incompetent and vague statements about me. First you seem to be making a lot of mistakes in your statements lately. You thought that I was part of this case. Well I was not and I expect higher standards of behaviour and cluefulness especially from an admin and one aspiring to get involved in Arbitration matters. You have not answered any of my concerns and you made things worse by insisting on weaseling ideas around about tag-teaming and meatpuppetry. I take this as a personal attack. You use the mere coincidence of the timing of my reaction with HiaB against me and you imply malicious things about me. But don't worry. I do not take your statements and insinuations seriously. Your behaviour thus far, full of mistakes as it is, is a clear indication of the quality of your scurrilous assertions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In addition I know that I came in good faith and thinking I was performing my wiki civic duty to your talkpage to inform you about your mistake in blocking the Count. After some hesitation you appeared receptive and you undid the block while apologising "all round" to use your expression. Then you come here unbeknownst to me and not informing me to make all these weasel accusations against me. I content that in light of your all around apologies during the block incident your actions here are logically and morally inconsistent and your accusations against me way off the mark. You don't apologise to people that you think beset you and are tag teamers and meatpuppets. This paints a picture of inconsistent and incompetent actions not befitting someone with AE enforcement responsibilities. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. Risker (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Echo Risker's comments above, and note the current AE request regarding this current area. Count's words may have been "unfortunate", as Brews Ohare as stated, but it reflects a reality that many of us see, that Count Iblis, Hell Inn a Bucket, and other editors act as advocates/meatpuppets for Brews Ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think what Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are missing here is that when they routinely show up to defend Brews, at length, in various venues, it begins to wear on everyone and regardless of their intent, looks like advocacy. If you have real interest in helping another editor, assisting them in resolving their problems is always going to actually help - pretending those problems don't exist and they can do no wrong just makes the problem worse. Shell babelfish 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)