Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miradre (talk | contribs) at 22:57, 20 July 2011 (→‎Statement by your Miradre). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence]] none none 12 July 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia]] none none 25 June 2011

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Initiated by Miradre (talk) at 10:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by your Miradre

The current statement for the scope of the sanctions are "to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed)". It is highly problematic that the focus seems to be on "articles" and not on the actual material that is edited. The same focus on the article title rather than on the material edited are in these templates:

1. Does the sanctions include material that is clearly not regarding this intersection but that are in articles that may contain some other material regarding to this intersection. For example, would adding material about the relationship between "IQ and happiness" to the "IQ" article be within the scope of the sanctions?

2. Exactly what articles are included? Articles about ethnic foods? Female circumcision (varies by ethnicity)? Cousin marriages? Immigration? Slavery? Wars (ethnicity certainly often important)? Are articles about various differences between nations under the sanctions? Ethnically based political parties? Politics in general which often includes ethnic concerns? General medical articles since there are ethnic differences regarding diseases? All religious articles since religion varies by ethnicity? I am sure the one with could find this intersection in some small part of every article about human activity in Wikipedia which in effect would mean that all articles about humans are under the scope.

I would recommend that the emphasis should be shifted from specific "articles" to specific "material". So the parts of the "IQ" article not about this intersection is not under the sanctions but the sanctions apply to material about the intersection regardless of the title of article.

Reply to xeno. Since I am topic banned at the moment I am of course interested in knowing what areas I may edit. It is in the area of psychology I have most knowledge and am able to contribute. For example, may I add material about "IQ and happiness" to the IQ article? May I create a new article about how happiness differ between nations? See the other examples I mentioned above. I am sure to be instantly reported by the editors who wants an excuse to ban me permanently so I would like to know before editing where the border goes.Miradre (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Mathsci's comments and his other behavior of following me around it seems likely he will file an AE immediately if I make an edit of any kind to IQ the article and many other articles of the kind I described above. That is exactly why I would like a clarification before making such an edit. I appreciate Mastcell's view that I can make "general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection" but due to the emphasis on specific "articles" rather on "content" both in the sanction text and the tagging it not certain that every administrator would agree that I would be allowed to edit the "IQ" article at all. I would rather not gamble which I why I ask before.Miradre (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aprock. None of the articles or edits, such as the rankings in the book Human Accomplishment, are about either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. Harassment by Aprock who disagrees with me on issues besides race and intelligence. Also, as usual his presentation is misleading. As far as I know E. O. Wilson is not a "prominent hereditarian" on either race or intelligence issues. Also, I still do not understand or have received an explanation for why Aprock did not also receive a topic ban, or at least notification, for reverting. He did more reverts than me as documented in the topic ban discussion! [1] Looks like a double standard in this area, when I receive a 3 month topic ban, while he nothing for doing more reverts than me, so a clarification would be helpful.Miradre (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To clarify the time sequence regarding questions and answers in the RfC: Note also that this a new question today from aprock after several arbiters have already answered my earlier one week old question. Miradre (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

Meritless request. This editor is spamming neutral articles with non-neutral content related to R&I and wasting the time of editors, administrators and (in this case) arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just one of a large number of editors to find problems with Miradre's edits. I have been involved in only three of the articles that Miradre has edited recently (White flight, List of international rankings and Malaria). Elsewhere on wikipedia, but not here, Aprock has been the main target of Miradre's complaints. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

As a general observation, the race & intelligence dispute features a number of editors who are quite invested in testing and wikilawyering the boundaries of their restrictions. Given this tendency, I think a broad restriction is preferable to death by a thousand cuts. If Miradre's edits are general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection, then I think we have to trust that admins won't sanction him for them. On the other hand, if Miradre's edits simply seem designed to circumvent the letter of the restriction on race/intelligence articles, then I think admins should have the latitude to act. MastCell Talk 18:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by aprock

As an illustration of MastCell's comments above about "testing boundaries", Miradre has embarked on a series of edits to promote the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, adding it to a number of articles where it's inclusion is WP:UNDUE:

On a related tack...

Given this pattern of "walking the line" of his topic ban, could an administrator please clarify whether or not these edits fall within or without the scope of the topic ban? aprock (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Tammsalu

I am not happy with the way the AGK has handled the above mentioned AE case, where I reported Russavia for breaching his interaction ban, and seek clarification of some issues that have arisen in wake of this.

Background

I was minding my own business editing Occupation of the Baltic states, where I had corrected some obviously POVed piece of unsorted text that made a misleading assertion [6]. Unfortunately before I could add the appropriate reference to support the change, Russavia reverted the text in the very next edit[7]. Because the revert is not permitted per WP:IBAN, and Russavia is subject to an interaction ban, I asked Administrators to take action in an appropriate forum being WP:AE, as permitted by Wikipedia:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans. Russavia was subsequently blocked for 48 hours and AGK asked for input from other Administrators if any further action should be taken[8].

However no other Administrator had made any comment despite AGK's request for input while the case remained open during the week, thus most people would construe that no further action was necessary. In fact the case remained open for such a long time that Russavia was able to comment further after his block expired[9], seeking a retaliatory block. AGK duly complies and blocks me, claiming the filing an AE report about Russavia's violation was a breach of my own interaction ban[10].

When I and others subsequently point out that WP:IBAN explicitly permits the reporting of the other party in mutual interaction bans, AGK agrees that my filing of an AE report was not a violation of my interaction ban[11], but then claims this edit[12], made six days after Russavia's ban breaching revert was a violation of my interaction ban.

However it is a general principle that edits made in defiance of a ban should be reverted, Wikipedia:IBAN#Enforcement_by_reverting discusses this. As Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement states, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns, in this case:

  • Maximizing the quality of the encyclopaedia and;
  • Dissuading or preventing banned editors from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban.

It would just simply be untenable that a breaching edit, such as revert or even a comment on a user talk page cannot ever be undone, not in one week, one month or ever. It would lead to all sorts of kamikaze sanction breaking edits if there was some profit to be derived from that.

I am a long standing editor of Occupation of the Baltic states with 132 edits since March 2007 compared with Russavia's 5 edits since May 2009[13]. My edit of the 17th of June[14], coming six days after Russavia's original breaching edit[15], was not a blind revert but was made in the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, removing the ban breaching edit and adding the two references I was was going to add before the disruption.

An additional issue is that I asked AGK to amend the result of the AE case to reflect his new reason for the block[16], he has not done so.

Points for clarification

Can the Committee clarify whether:

  • WP:IBAN permits reporting the other party for breaching a mutual interaction ban, WP:AE being the appropriate forum for such requests for Admin assistance
  • In the case that an Administrator has determined that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting

Thanks for your time. --Martin (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EdJohnston

EdJohnston claims there is no wording in WP:BAN that permits reverting of ban breaching edits, yet this clearly states:

"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

Of course regular reverts are prohibited by WP:IBAN, but what AGK and EdJohnston are saying is that, for example, if someone should make an edit in defiance of their IBAN by leaving a comment on my talk page, and I would not be allowed to remove that ban breaching edit from my talk page after the matter has been reported and the other party blocked. In other words, AGK and EdJohston are saying that a long standing editor of an article (132 edits since 2007) can never edit that particular section of an article ever again because the other party (5 edits since 2009) has defied their IBAN by disruptively editing that section, even though the matter has been appropriately reported and the other party blocked for defying their IBAN. --Martin (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AGK

AGK raises the issue of "unclean hands", however my revert came six days after I reported Russavia's edit and after it was determined that edit was made in defiance of Russavia's IBAN, so AGK's claim that I came to AE with "unclean hands" is some what misleading because my AE request significantly pre-dated the supposed "unclean" edit. --Martin (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeking your opinion, which has been proven to be wrong in the past, (you confirmed that you had always intended to block me[17], but apparently lacking any evidence you request input from other admins[18], and when that did not materialise, you make up a justification that is contrary to policy[19]; I note that you had closed the AE report[20] without annotating it to indicate your original decision was completely flawed, resulting in a misleading record being archived), but clarification of two issues by the Committee. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, do you understand the meaning of the term "clarification" and how that meaning contrasts with term "action"? Given that you have not amended the original reason (hadn't you read WP:IBAN before coming up with that rationale?) for your block[21] when closing the case[22] that has been subsequently archived, I am entitled to seek definitive clarification on behalf of the community from the Arbitration Committee as to whether filing AE requests reporting breaches of IBANs is itself a breach of IBAN, lest some admin in the future thinks otherwise, as you did in the past. You seem to be challenging my right to seek that definitive clarifcation in the apparent belief that I am seeking some kind of action from the Committee, by continually repeating your viewpoint as if you believe in the power of proof by assertion. My second point of clarification is concerning WP:BAN's policy in regard to reversion of edits made in defiance of a ban. Perhaps if you can drop your apparent self-preservation mode and let the Committee give due consideration and answer these important questions rather than continue in your apparent belief that I am asking the Committee to rule on your admittedly woeful handling of this case, that would be helpful. The Committee's answer will determine whether or not I need to ask for an amendment to the enforcement provisions of the respective ArbCom cases. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Shell

Shell, reverting out of the blue isn't identical to reverting an edit in context of an AE report which has found that specific edit presented as evidence had breached the ban.

Are you saying that if A breaches their interaction ban by, for example, leaving a comment on B's talk page and is subsequently reported and blocked, party B cannot subsequently remove that ban breaching comment from their talk page ever? Don't you think that turns the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, which seeks to dissuade banned editors from editing the relevant area of the ban, on its head by incentivising undesirable behaviour by making such edits sticky? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I see that Russavia has chimed in to my clarification request, which I thought clearing up the two issues would be of benefit for him too, given the fact that he had again reverted[23] my edit[24] within hours of him coming off his own block. But instead he launches in to more polemic.

His continual reference to myself after his block, not only in the original AE case[25], not only a second time[26], but a third time[27], and a forth time in this Clarification request is surely yet another breach of his interaction ban, since WP:IBAN suggests any complaint be made no more than once.

It seems to me that this clarification request has gone as far as it can, so I'm not going to comment further. I'll be filing amendments in due course to update the enforcement provisions of both relevant cases to introduce an additional "Enforcement by reversion" provision with respect to the interaction bans (which is within scope of the WP:BAN policy) in order to solve the problems evident with the current regime. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

Russavia reverted Martin, in violation of WP:IBAN and WP:EEML#Interaction ban. I blocked Russavia, which Martin did not contest. Martin then re-reverted Russavia; for this, I therefore also blocked Martin. It is a given at AE that editors with "unclean hands" who request enforcement may also be blocked or sanctioned. I do not see what the issue is here. AGK [•] 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin: I agreed with you that you did not violate the interaction bam by submitting an enforcement request. That is not an issue here. As I have said repeatedly, you were blocked for reverting Russavia. Admittedly, you did not revert until after you filed the enforcement request, but it was a revert nonetheless - and therefore a violation of the interaction ban. Again, I do not see what your complaint is. AGK [•] 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin: But I will give my opinion anyway. I am as entitled to opine on the issue as you are, and as a general matter it is encouraged that the other parties have the opportunity to challenge the reasoning of an editor who is filing for action by ArbCom. Your re-revert was undeniably violation of WP:IBAN. AGK [•] 23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin: Who is Andrew? If you are responding to me, my name is Anthony. AGK [•] 12:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I believe that WP:IBAN does not allow the action that Tammsalu says is OK. He makes a statement which I can't find support for in policy: "Having found that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting." There is no wording in WP:BAN which supports that either. He might be thinking of the provision of WP:3RR which does not include reverts of a banned editor as counting toward the limit of three reverts. Tammsalu is not allowed to revert *any* edit of someone from whom he is interaction banned, so the fact that such an edit won't count towards 3RR is not of interest. Tammsalu is asking Arbcom to rule on what the policy says, and I think it supports AGK's view of the matter. I would also recommend that Tammsalu change his signature to match his user name, since 'Martin' causes puzzlement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia

As User:Tammsalu (aka User:Martintg) accuses myself of disruption, one also needs to know:

  1. I did not know that a change in username had taken place, as I was encouraged to forget about the EEML editors - something which I had done.
  2. As I did not know that a username change had been made, it is WP:AGF that I was no aware that I was banned from interacting with the editor now known as Tammsalu.
  3. I was not blocked for my revert of his edit on Occupation of the Baltic States - it needs to be mentioned that Tammsalu's edit on that article was not adequately summarised in the edit summary.
  4. I was blocked for my edits on Russophobia - an article on which discussion on the talk page was occurring, and for which Tammsalu was not involved
  5. Immediately after my block, Tammsalu interjects himself on the Russophobia article, thereby all but blocking myself from participating in discussion. It also needs to be noted that discussion was occurring with several editors who are banned from interacting. But Tammsalu's interjection is questionable.
  6. Also immediately after my block, Tammsalu makes this edit to Anti-Estonian sentiment. And again, Tammsalu uses the totally misleading edit summary of copy edit.
  7. I made substantial edits to the article back in July 2010, and if one compares Tammsalu's edits with the article as it stood last year here, one will see that Tammsalu's edit is no copy edit, but rather a complete removal of all changes I made to the article last year (i.e. a wholesale revert), and has been done by himself as he is now safe in the knowledge that I am now unable to touch a single thing on that article.
  8. It is obvious that Tammsalu is intent on continuing with the battleground here on Wikipedia, regardless of what is on his talk page, there is no need to perpetuate the battleground on his part, when there really isn't one.

Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself, and his history of vexatious reporting, it appears that as soon as there was a good faith belief that my revert of their edit was made without knowledge of their change of username, they immediately escalated the issue and reported me for breaking an interaction ban with other editors, when those editors were more than able to report me. This in itself is a dire breach of Martintg's interaction ban, is it not?

I urge arbitrators to look at this for themselves, and comment accordingly. --Russavia Let's dialogue 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Sander Sade's comments

  1. My reports were never found by Arbcom to be vexatious in nature. This was very clearly stated by Shell Kinney herself in that case.
  2. Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination states "Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating." So, who exactly was harrassed, and who were the specific users? Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted basically says it all, does it not?
  3. User:Nanobears insertion of material on Russophobia was not unverifiable. (Talk:Russophobia#Aivars_Slutsis_Sl.C5.ABcis) The doctor's name was not wrong - it was merely transliterated from Russian from the source (Slutsis), rather than native Latvian (Slucis).
  4. Please read WP:EDITSUMMARY. Misleading edit summaries of "copy edit" should be frowned upon, particularly when it is obvious that an editor has not done a copy edit, but has rather reverted to a year old version of the article, so his edit summary should have been "rv to year old version" rather than "copy edit". It should be noted that the reversion has removed context, re-inserted information which fails verification, and a host of other problems which were fixed with the article. The timing of the edit by Tammsalu also should call into question his motives? Of course, he is now aware that I am unable to change a single thing on that article, because for me to do so will result in a vexatious report being made, and unfortunately, many admins don't want to take the time to look at issues in any great depth to see what is actually happening. And it appears that Tammsalu is now intent on using an interaction ban as a battleground tool to enforce content. This is NOT on. To claim that the wholesale revert was reverting to a "stable" version is misinformation, as there has been no objections to edits on the article in the last 12 months, and it has not been subject to edit wars or anything of the like. It is a provocative revert on the part of the editor, whereby every single edit I had made to the article from 12 months ago has been undone, regardless of the reasons I made the edits, which are clearly explained in both edit summaries and on the talk page.
  5. I have created no battleground. I explained that I had no idea that Tammsalu was Martintg, and suggested that the report be dropped and everyone get back to editing. Instead, Tammsalu ignored that, and furthered the BG by reporting Russophobia edits, in which he was not involved, and no other editor had any problem with at the time; Sander Sade was more than capable of reporting, but obviously saw nothing wrong with edit and discussion occurring on the article, except now that this is being brought to the Committee's attention it is all of a sudden a problem. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Tammsalu's comments

This is necessary dispute resolution, not simply a clarification request. As per AGK's comments I have sought the guidance of uninvolved admins (Jehochman and FPaS) on how to approach instances such as that on Anti-Estonian sentiment. Those two admins have not responded, so perhaps the committee can provide guidance on how to approach issues such as this. I have taken note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. Will anyone on the Committee be prepared to look past the surface and take a little bit of time to actually look at what appears to be occurring. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Estonian sentiment

I have posted a raft of problems relating to Anti-Estonian sentiment at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Major_problems_with_this_article. Given the 1) timing of the edit by Tammsalu and 2) fact that all edits by myself to the article 12 months ago have been reverted and 3) the nature of the information which has been removed and/or reintroduced into the article by Tammsalu, from where I am sitting, I can only assume that this is a provocative edit on the part of Tammsalu, perhaps with a bit of battleground furtherance behind it, but done first and foremost because the interaction ban would prevent myself from doing anything substantial on the article as it would be seen as a revert at WP:AE, which I am sure would be taken there if I attempted to touch the article in any substantial way.

I am not going to wikilawyer restrictions as seems to be the case with this very clarification request, but if one uses the very same arguments that Tammsalu is using, I would be well within my rights (according to Tammsalu) to report him to WP:AE for breaking his interaction ban on me, and I would be well within my rights to immediately undo his edit in its entireity. But I shall not do this, because the reasoning is shallow and not really grounded in policy.

However, I would ask the Committee to re-read Tammsalu's initial complaint, and then look at his actions on the above article, and one could likely reach the conclusion that Tammsalu is using the interaction ban in such a way that is pointy and somewhat disruptive to the project as a whole. This opinion is reinforced even further after Tammsalu has used mutual and constructive interactions between Miacek and myself in such a way as to try and have me alone sanctioned.

Perhaps editors could clarify their reasons right here for their edits, so that the committee can reach informed opinion on whether interaction bans are now going to be used as a battleground tool by certain editors, and whether some amendment to cases actually need to be made. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sander Säde

Russavia, very funny.

  • "Vexatious reporting" when his report was found actionable by block (btw, wasn't constant vexatious reporting the reason why you got the interaction ban in the first place?).
  • Martin's history of "harrassment". Not found by thorough ArbCom investigation, perhaps because there was none?
  • Russophobia - as I recall, someone named Russavia repeatedly reverted removal of Nanobear's rather dubious unverifiable material (which, as it came out, was wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor...) in violation of Russavia's interaction ban. That kind of BLP rule-violating reverts are no different from vandalism - and should be treated as such. And somehow Martin is "intent on continuing with the battleground here on Wikipedia" despite you creating the battleground?!
  • Misleading edit summaries - I don't see why you keep bringing this up. As a first thing, edit summaries are not even required. Considering the scope of Martin's edits, what should he have written? "Changes to restore stable version and improve the article, namely [this], [this], [this] and [that]..."? "Copy edit" was perfectly acceptable description, especially considering he continued with five more edits to improve the article.

--Sander Säde 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobear: a) The doctor was from USA, not Latvia; b) He has allegedly published ads, not article; c) He didn't write in the ad that he would not treat a Russian patient; d) Doctor's name is Slūcis (transliterated Slucis), the professor (or you, as I have not seen the original) obviously mistransliterated the name.

So. What exactly do you claim that was correct about your edit? No typos? Bonus points there. Even the source itself was given partially, without the publisher or ISBN. This is not an acceptable way to edit controversial topics. And yet you dare to claim I "arrived" here reeking "of clear battleground behaviour and harassment"... I don't think any further comments are needed. I am done here and will leave for my well-deserved two-week vacation on the beach. Bye. --Sander Säde 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nanobear

Response to Sander Säde: No, the material I inserted was not "unverifiable" and "wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor" as you claim. What I inserted was this [28]. It is not "unverifiable": the source (which I gave in the edit) is ISBN 9780230614185 (pages 44 and 58), a book written by a Professor of San Francisco University, a notable expert. The name of the doctor is not wrong; it comes directly from source and has the same transliteration as in the source. That Sander Säde has chosen to arrive here claiming that my completely legitimate edit is "wrong in almost every respect" reeks of clear battleground behaviour and harassment by Sander Säde.

About changing usernames: Martintg/Tammsalu seems to have covertly changed his username without notifying ArbCom clerks. His new username is NOT listed at WP:EEML, making is difficult for admins and editors to find the sanctions and warnings Martintg has received. It also leads to misunderstandings such as when Russavia did not know recognise Tammsalu as Martintg and did not know Tammsalu was an EEML member (with whom Russavia is not supposed to interact with), since Tammsalu's name is not listed at Wikipedia:EEML#List_membership. When I changed my username, I immediately informed a clerk (as well as ArbCom) about the change, and my name on the relevant pages was changed: [29]. Why has Martintg not done the same? Did he simply forget, or was it a deliberate attempt to conceal his history of disruption - your choice. Nanobear (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My thoughts are that someone may let an admin know that a mutual interaction ban has been breached, but reverting the edits yourself is a step too far. SirFozzie (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Fozzie here; reporting someone is one thing, going on to repeat the behavior yourself is right out. Shell babelfish 14:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, not what I said at all. This was an article, not your own talk page (where people certainly have more leeway) and this isn't a topic ban or even a one way interaction ban, it's a mutual interaction ban. Reverting a content change after getting someone blocked isn't going to discourage interaction, in fact, it's likely to inflame things further. Shell babelfish 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Shell and Fozzie here. Editors should be allowed to let admins know about possible violations of an interaction ban, but that doesn't give one leeway to also possibly violate the terms. In the very least it's unhelpful and in the worst case makes the scenario much worse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with my fellow arbitrators - reporting an infringement of the mutual interaction ban would be ok, but reverting the edit was unhelpful. In this context, I think AGK's handling of the situation was entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per preceding - don't revert someone you are not allowed to interact with - there are always plenty of admins or other editors around to ask. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to agree with the above, but my concern is that this position provides a "first-mover" advantage (in terms of article content) for a violation of an interaction ban. Should administrators receiving a report of a violation revert the violating edit (similar to the advice at Wikipedia:PROT#Content disputes)? –xenotalk 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=440560755"