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 Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) at 04:54, 1 October 2012 (Undid revision 515403328 by Ohconfucius (talk) + claraifiction). 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
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: ARBFLG2 none none 26 September 2012
Clarification request: Date delinking none none 23 June 2012

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section 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).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  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.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Clarification request: ARBFLG2

Initiated by Homunculus (duihua) at 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Homunculus

I was subject to a terminal topic ban on content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed, per ARBFLG2. I'd like to ask a couple questions concerning the scope of the topic ban, and ask for advice on how to handle a couple situations that have arisen over the last couple months.

  1. I'm working on taking a the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei through a GA review after its lead author went MIA. The reviewer proposed a structural reorganization and consolidation of some sections on the article. One of these sections has a couple sentences that could very broadly be construed as related to Falun Gong. Specifically, it notes coverage that the event received in the Epoch Times newspaper, which was established by practitioners of Falun Gong. I have no intention of touching that content, but just to err on the side of caution, I wanted to ask whether it would be alright for me to pare down some of the other content contained in that section (it's a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM right now). Alternately, could I ask another editor to take a look at it?
  2. I recently revisited an article I wrote related to Falun Gong, and noticed I had made a small but non-trivial error concerning the title of a Chinese government official. What should I do in cases like this? Can I contact another editor, alert them to the error, and let them decide how and whether to correct it?
  3. On a similar note, I created an article on the Shifang protest a couple months ago. After I started work on the article, I found news coverage that noted an interesting (if very tenuous) link between this event and Falun Gong. It's probably notable enough to be mentioned in one sentence. Could I send another editor a link to the relevant news coverage, and leave it to them to decide whether the information is worth including on the page?

My understanding of the policy on WP:PROXYING is that the above two examples would be permissible, as long as the editors making changes are using independent judgement. Is that right? Assuming it is, I'm also wondering if there are any recommendations on who I should contact in cases like this to mitigate against any appearance of impropriety. Would it be preferable to ask editors who have minimal involvement in the FLG topic area, or neutral admins, as opposed to editors I've worked with on FLG before? And should those correspondences take place on-wiki or by email? Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold, that all makes good sense. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Homunculus originally posted the first question to my talk page; I replied here but to reiterate, in general (note that underlined bits have since been added):
    • An edit re-ordering text without removing or deleting anything would probably fall under "uncontroversial corrections to [...] style" and thus acceptable to edit without following the restrictions outlined by WP:MER unless:
      • An editor has previously expressed opposition to the change or a similar one, or
      • The re-ordering may impact how the presented information is perceived by the reader (for example, mentioning a negative review before a positive one when it was previously the other way around)
    • Whenever any editor subject to restrictions is unsure if an edit falls within said restrictions, the editor should err on the side of caution and assume it does unless explicitly told otherwise by community consensus or the restricting authority (being the admin who levied the sanction or, as in this case, the Committee)
Although in hindsight I'd forgotten about the topic ban, so yes, you shouldn't be editing anything in the subject area yourself until the topic ban expires, regardless of triviality. I've added the underlined bit to clarify. To answer your specific questions, though...
  1. I would consider anything noting coverage in the Epoch Times to fall under your topic ban. As long as you avoid that particular section, however, I would think it's fine for you to do whatever; it doesn't appear as though the vast majority of the article would fall under that umbrella. In this particular case, since the reviewer has left specific comments to be followed, asking another editor to handle that particular change would be fine and perhaps preferable just to avoid even the slightest hint of impropriety. Here, you haven't requested the changes directly, so I don't believe that WP:PROXYING would really be an issue.
  2. Technically your topic ban forbids all discussion across all namespaces, but if there is indeed a simple error I see little value in allowing incorrect information to remain simply on a matter of bureaucracy. I would say yes, that would be fine in this limited circumstance, provided that your request is worded in such a way that it allows the editor to make their own judgment as to whether the edit is appropriate (per WP:PROXYING, they must take responsibility for the change), and that if they opt to discuss it with others you would not be able to participate in the discussion, and not continue to ask people if they determine the change should not be made.
  3. This one I can't see any justification for; there's no incorrect information presently in the article, and presumably another editor could find the same news coverage and mention it themselves without your intervention.
To answer your closing questions, the best place to leave these requests would probably be on a relevant (non-Falun Gong-related) Wikiproject's talk page. This way anyone can pick it up, and it provides a starting point for discussion if needed. Wherever it is, definitely on-wiki; keep things in the open, where they can be easily seen by all editors, so if there are any issues, they can be easily addressed. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the cautious approach outlined by Hersfold. That said, Mandated External Review is a new process, and some fine tuning may be appropriate. Looking at the WP:MER page, there is already an exception for 'minor, uncontroversial corrections to spelling, grammar, and/or style' and it's possible this clause could be expanded slightly to allow fixing one own's edits, for example. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Hersfold's and PhilKnight's positions. Risker (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the comments above. And since Homunculus has indicated he also agrees, this request can probably be closed soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I'm in broad agreement with the above, but have nothing specific to add. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Date delinking

Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarily re-opened by the Arbitration Committee per this. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Gimmetoo

As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [2] [3] [4] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [5], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [6] [7] [8]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

  • Let me fix the problems on the articles and at the source, and I will reply later. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the trouble that ISO access dates have been causing, I am prepared to start a new regime of editing in relation to dates – one that is more conservative so as to avoid complaints. I would undertake not to touch them from now on, either manually or by script, until a new consensus is reached on them. As part of the problem was due to uncorrected script bugs, I also pledge to exercise greater diligence to scrutinise test and modify the MOSNUM scripts, and to rectify any reported errors as soon as possible.

    I believe it's not worth arguing this one out, and hope that the community resolves the matters in its own time. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because of family matters, I decided to resign on 12 July; shocked and demoralised by the FLG2 case, I had decided that the Ohconfucius account was too tainted if ever I made a comeback. So yes, it was a conscious decision to use another account I had created. I made 67 edits using the account since my reurn, quite a few of which were substantive content edits; I did indeed also make some date-related edits, and I regret the impression created that I was trying to avoid detection. I would reiterate the object for me was to avoid using the Ohconfucius account if at all possible.

    The Smalleditor account was and always has been a declared alternative account. And upon returning, I started using it exclusively. But I decided that I would not want the complexities of the scripts' migration affecting many files and many users. For personal reasons, my level of activity is and shall remain very much less than the volume of contribution I made in the past. My current activity, as Ohconfucius, is to improve the functionality of the scripts under my control; the mainspace edits, whilst affecting dates, actually span the entire MOS. Edits have been limited in number – I save but a small fraction of those I actually test on, as a record of the scripts' progress. I took the unblock to mean that my the undertaking in my email to Arbcom has been acceptable. As noted in my email(s) to arbcom, I now no longer change accessdates – the dates script has been modified to that effect. I have not made any substantive edits in mainspace since. I am open to suggestions from Arbcom as to how I might re-establish trust in my good behaviour going forwards. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification: "I now no longer change accessdates" was intended to be prefaced by the context of 'access dates in ISO format'. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JimWae

I bring to attention again that the script OhC has constructed (& that is used by numerous others) has a function to change any and ALL dates to MDY or DMY, but has no function to change any dates at all (specifically neither accessdates nor archivedates) to YMD. As more people use this tool, inevitably there can only be further violations of WP:DATERET for accessdates and archivedates as people use the tool without first fully examining WP guidelines that allow YMD for those dates. I submit that either 1> changing accessdates & archivedates to YMD be added to the script, OR 2> changes to any accessdates and archivedates be entirely removed from the script, OR 3> the script be retired. --JimWae (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BlueMoonset

Given that Ohconfucius stated on 20 September that accessdate edits had stopped, I was surprised to see that his tool had been used to make edit changes that included accessdate modifications to Vitamin D (Glee) early on 27 September [9]. This turns out to be one of hundreds of edits over the past few days, the summary of each being "style fixes (text)". Selecting the subsequent Walter Cronkite and Wadsworth High School edits, both included accessdate edits. Looking back, accessdate edits appear to have started on 24 September with Undershaw: [10].

My experience is that there have been testing problems with Ohconfucius in the past few months: as noted in User talk:Ohconfucius/archive23#More editing problems, despite being informed that valid accessdate fields were being removed, edits continued without fixing, and more dates disappeared. At least one of the edits noted there and in Gimmetoo's initial statement above, [11], has never been fixed.

The first responsibility of someone running a tool should be to fix any known damage immediately, the second priority should be to look for more bad edits and fix them, and a distant third should be to debug the tool and resume testing. I don't see this in the actions of Ohconfucius. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Any update on this? NW (Talk) 21:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not finding the answer particularly plausible, OhConfucius. You don't explain why you undertook to continue editing date-related material, and frankly, your return to editing under an alternate account, to conduct date-related edits when I'd clearly told you twice that you needed to answer this charge of misconduct before doing so, is more concerning than any script error. Throughout this entire return, you claimed to be retired, only amending that in the last day or two. You spun a compelling tale in email when this issue was first raised, explaining why you would be less active, and you then reiterated your desire to leave the community entirely after the Falun Gong 2 finding against you. Yet, a few weeks later you're back, editing dates surreptitiously. Why should the community believe you when you say you won't cause any more problems, given your rather poor track record of congruence between your recent actions and recent statements? Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him?  Roger Davies talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarily re-opened per this statement by the committee. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Risker's comments, firstly no sanctions are currently active, and secondly, a return to the same conduct which led to the imposition of sanctions could result in the sanctions being reinstated. PhilKnight (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=515418473"