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 Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 1 January 2014 (new requests at the top). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
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
Amendment request: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute none (orig. case) 31 December 2013
Clarification request: Infoboxes none none 28 December 2013
Clarification request: Tea Party movement none (orig. case) 17 December 2013

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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).

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
127128

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:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Amendment request: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute

Initiated by NE Ent at 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. suspended topic ban
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

Statement by NE Ent

The absolute binary nature of this remedy has put the AE community in the awkward position of either ignoring or imposing a severe remedy for what is arguably a minor, perhaps unintentional, infraction of the revert restriction remedy of the case. Please see applicable AE discussion. The committee should either just go ahead and impose the ban, or empower the admins at the AE to use their judgement as to whether the remedy is appropriate in a particular context. NE Ent 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

A splendid example of the "law of unintended consequences." Fixable simply by changing will be to may be and adding after discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. Sorter wording and wording which well ought to be adopted by ArbCom in similar cases in future. Collect (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Clarification request: Infoboxes

Initiated by RexxS (talk) at 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Editors reminded

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

Statement by RexxS

I seek clarification of the remedy Editors reminded

  • 5) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
Passed 10 to 0 at 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this remedy meant to have effect? Today, following > discussion on the talk page, I restored an infobox to Deepika Padukone with an edit summary explaining my edit:

  • infobox provides quick overview of key facts in a predictable position, microformats and structured data - see talk

With no further discussion, Dr. Blofeld reverted my edit with edit summary:

  • bullshit Undid revision 588111954 by RexxS (talk))

And followed that up with utterly inapropriate comments at the talk page.:

  • "Neither of the article authors want an infobox. Take your infobox Nazism somewhere else"

Apart from the blatant OWNERSHIP, this behaviour directly contravenes the remedy, requiring editors to "maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes". Is the remedy meant to be taken seriously? If so, then why should I have to be subjected to these sort of remarks? It remains impossible to discuss infoboxes in a civilised manner with these people - just as I explained during the case.

I also seek guidance: If there is no means to enforce the ArbCom remedy, then the case has merely emboldened those who dislike infoboxes and given them licence to attack good-faith editors with impunity, rendering discussion futile once more. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio Giuliano: What exactly was hypothetical about the violation of the remedy? If these sort of remedies have no function, then I must ask what is the point of having them?
To the general point, I am not seeking to see Dr. Blofeld sanctioned; I don't believe that sanctioning adults who are long-term editors produces much more than resentment. What I am seeking is merely to find myself in a position where I can edit in a civil and collegiate atmosphere, where differences can be discussed and consensus sought. ArbCom spent a lot of time on this case and I spent a lot of time explaining this very problem six months ago. The least I should be able to expect is that all that effort was not for naught, but I can't say I'm exactly encouraged by Dr. Blofeld's response. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: At 19:14 UTC when you made your comment, the talk page looked like > this. Anyone can read that and see how far off the mark you are. Once sensible discussion had begun, it focussed on the reasons why that specific article should or should not have an infobox. Subsequently, a broader discussion with several other contributors has continued in a positive atmosphere. Because I complain about egregiously poor behaviour, you think that I need to be sanctioned as well? The problem here is solely that Blofeld attempted to derail discussion from the start. I find it very disturbing that you mischaracterise my good-faith contributions so badly and once again are falling back on stifling contributions as your sole means of resolving problems. You can do better. Do you want to reconsider your view? --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: I'm sorry, I appreciate the work you've done, but it's not "your FA" and you're not even in the top 5 contributors. Who are these "us editors agreeing on no infobox"? and where was the agreement made? what happened to consensus? Who are these "people like Rexx"? I'm an editor in good standing who has written featured content, as well as contributed to many technical aspects of editing. Does that somehow disqualify me from editing articles that you own? If you don't understand that you can't have a veto over all the content, then you need to learn why we have WP:OWN as a policy. My edit was a good-faith attempt to improve the article and the summary was accurate (quoted above). Your mischaracterisation of it as false is beneath contempt. The infobox contains much that isn't in the lead and you might learn what if you deigned to engage in discussion instead of painfully inaccurate hyperbole: "This cult to force an infobox on every article" indeed! Check my contributions: the number of infoboxes I've added can be counted on the fingers of one hand. --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: You're wrong again. I really wish that I didn't have to keep correcting the spin you put on my actions, but I came to the article from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2014, read the talk page, saw two other editors asking about the missing infobox and checked the archive. I found no discussion on the talk page about removing the infobox, but eventually I found the FAC where one reviewer was in favour of the infobox and one was against. You have imposed your preference on the article without seeking consensus. Not only that but you fobbed off one editor on the talk page by claiming that the infobox contained nothing that was not in the lead, which we know is not true. I commented on the talk page that you were wrong and then added the infobox to demonstrate what an infobox could bring to the article. My edit summary on the article refers to my previous post at the talk page, and you can see from the diff values (588111923 and 588111954) that my talk page contribution preceded the addition of the infobox. Is that clear now? Strike your mistake and we can move on - there's no need to apologise. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I'm sorry but you have formed far too simplistic a view of "metadata". There are many different forms of metadata, but our infoboxes also provide microformats for some (but not all) fields. Different infoboxes provide different microformats and even the same infobox may have different fields and hence different microformats on different articles. You simply cannot consider the value of an infobox to a given article with a generic argument, for example I wouldn't say that an infobox improved an article if it only emitted the name of the subject. Nevertheless, it is often the case that I have to explain the general principle before I can explain the specifics, because there is so much misinformation and lack of understanding out there. Without wishing to be rude, you demonstrate exactly the problem I may face when trying to help other editors evaluate the pros and cons of an infobox on a given article. In extremis, it is possible that I may have to actually create an infobox to demonstrate the value, as I did on Deepika Padukone. It is a pity that it was reverted in a knee-jerk reaction only an hour later before being of any use in the discussion. There is, and was, no consensus on that article to remove the infobox, and good-faith editors with some knowledge of the issues need to be free to edit without being subjected to unacceptable behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look folks, this request of mine has now reached the point where it's generating more heat than light. These sort of procedings bring out the worst in me and I apologise to Blofeld and Carcharoth for being far too blunt in my replies to them.

I have now seen many more opinions on the general issue of being able to discuss infoboxes in a calm and collegial atmosphere and I am encouraged at last.

As for specifics:

  • The Talk:Deepika Padukone page now has several other editors contributing and the discussion is progressing peacefully;
  • Dr. Blofeld has kindly struck the remark I most objected to;
  • Blofeld and I are productively discussing our differences by email.

Could we wrap this up now and spare a few more innocent electrons? Please? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

New ArbCom should look at this. Dr Blofeld's statement is utterly unacceptable. I don't care who he's friends with, there's no excuse for that. I think this should be dealt with summarily and harshly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I think the question is, whether the remedy cited by Rexss can be used to justify an AE sanction, and that I think ArbCom needs to clarify. That seems to be important here as glancing at Dr Blofeld's block log, I see he's yet to serve out a block. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. You have a point, as little is served by blocking long term contributors, certainly not ones as active as you. I don't know what's to be done, but you can't spout off that way. Also, I don't have any rules on infoboxes, and have stubbornly resisted efforts by all and sundry to draw me into the fray. I'm fine with infoboxes, but they aren't appropriate for all articles. Perhaps you could strike the offensive language?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given Dr. Blofeld's statement, I am inclined to consider this a regrettable one-off incident.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr: that's fine. I don't care to get in to the rights and wrongs of infoboxes and the proper etiquette, my concern is big-picture, that this has caused huge problems in the FA area over the past two years. ArbCom's attempt at settling the matter did not, very clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. One more question. He added an infobox and did not discuss it to your satisfaction, I get that. But why did you assume that he was an "infobox enforcing regular", I don't quite understand that?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. That's fine, if you've worked it out, I can ask no more.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I haven't followed the original case or the ongoing discussions (if any) about this topic, but those who have may want to submit evidence about whether this is an isolated case, or whether incidents of this sort are a recurring occurrence among multiple editors. If the latter is the case, then the Committee may want to consider authorizing discretionary sanctions for this topic, as they already have for pages relating to the manual of style and the article titles policy (in WP:ARBATC).

As to the edits reported here, I agree with Wehwalt that they are unacceptable and should result in a rapid sanction. I'd issue a block myself under normal admin authority, but I am not sure whether I am preempted from doing so by the fact that the Committee has now been seized of this request for clarification.  Sandstein  23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

If you view the history of the Peter Sellers (here) and John Le Mesurier talk pages you'll see why infobox pushers highly frustrate me and this recent action on another of my FAs is really making me fed up with this website. Perhaps my reaction was strong if you look at it without understanding my previous battles with fighting infobox pushers but I'm fed up of writing FA articles and us editors agreeing on no infobox and then people like Rexx coming along and providing false edit summaries as if the infobox contains masses of useful data. At 18:21 on 28 December 2013 I stated "We decided that it had nothing of value and looked better without it. Infoboxes are not compulsory you know." on the talk page. Just 2 hours 12 m later, innocent Rexx comes along and imposes an infobox ignoring clear consensus and obviously being aware of the discussion, violating what you decided here. My edit summary reverting him, "bullshit", I take as meaning "nonsense" in response to his claim that the infobox was full of useful data for mobile readers when in reality its virtually empty. My response on the talk page did not contain personal attacks, rather an expression of contempt at the Nazi-like cult which exists on the website trying to force infoboxes on every article and told him to do something more useful. I very rarely add or revert infoboxes and care little for the nonsense associated with them so I really don't see the point in pursuing this further. I apologise if Rexx was upset with what I said, but I feel I was more than justified given the circumstances and my history with dealing with infobox pushers.

response to RexxS 20:50, 29 December 2013 comment " What I am seeking is merely to find myself in a position where I can edit in a civil and collegiate atmosphere, where differences can be discussed and consensus sought." Magic, that was quick, you've got it, see the Padakone talk page. If you'd refrained from ignoring the talk page discussion from the outset and joined in you'd have got the civil, collegiate atmosphere you desire, in fact it would have been amicable. You're really oblivious to what is going on on here? Please check the history of the Peter Sellers talk page, you view the recent archive. From your perspective, if as you say is true and you're not a regular infobox forcer my reaction was rude and unnecessary, if you view it from my perspective you'd more than understand what I've had to put up with for basically half a year and how your attempt to add an infobox against consensus between Krimuk and myself and the FA reviewers is yet another bloody chapter in this ongoing saga. It was your timing of adding the infobox. On the talk page Krimuk and I explicitly said we agreed on no infobox yet you ignored what was said and add it. If you expect me to believe that you, somebody who rarely adds infoboxes just happened to add it by coincidence I don't believe you. Had you joined in the conversation I would have maintained "decorum and civility" in discussing infoboxes.The fact that you thought this was worth bringing to arb is another example of the gross time wasting which goes on on this website.If my reaction was completely unnecessary, so was your bringing this here and wasting time. Mark my words, nothing positive is going to come from this arb case, if anything it will result in both of us having action sanctioned against us which are completely pointless given that neither of us regularly add or remove infoboxes and by the looks of it you're going to get me blocked... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wehwalt: Harshly? And the point of that would be? It would achieve what exactly? If you're to block/ban me for dismissing an edit summary which implies that something is of great benefit which is in violation of your "civilty" rules as "bullshit" as if that's a gross personal attack or something, then Rexx is equally guilty of violating your rules on infobox enforcement and blatantly ignoring the consensus on the talk page. It would be double standards wouldn't it? Blocking me or banning me from infoboxes will not stop uncivil discussions taking place over infoboxes. I've been civil in the actual discussions about infoboxes aside from my initial explanation of annoyance over the matter and have tried to make some constructive suggestions on how to include an infobox which has more value. The real issue lies much deeper and it's one I believe/hope will be resolved at some point with infoboxes being controlled by wiki data.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wehwalt, you mean my comparison of infobox enforcement to Nazism? Yes I'll strike that, I personally wouldn't find it offensive but I can see how some might. My point was that there seems to be some sort of obsession with adding infoboxes and editors seem intent on brutally enforcing them upon every article even when editors agree on not wanting them. I assumed that Rexx was one of the infobox enforcing regulars. It seems he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he ignored what we stated was agreed on the talk page and turned up and tried to enforce an infobox. If he wanted a collegiate atmosphere and to be treated amicably he should have simply joined in the discussion first and should have avoided what he surely would have known would be a controversial change... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs. Ownership? Editors who naturally put in hours/day/weeks of hard toil on articles, take them to GA and then FA and bother to promote them are naturally going to feel that they have had more input that most others editors and feel protective of them. That doesn't mean that we'll revert every edit made to it. Don't confuse claims of authorship with ownership.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wehwalt:My perception of the situation was that like with the Sellers article the infobox "enforcers" have sort of like a cell operation on here and are often aware of where disputes are taking place. You'll get people turning up trying to force infoboxes during disputes and them being reverted. I assumed that Rexx had read my "infoboxes are not compulsory and we agreed that no infobox looks better given the lack of info" and purposefully come along and added an infobox to assert that infoboxes are a necessity and override the preferences of the article editors. I think it was the fact he came along just 2 hours after I said that and added one I assumed him to be some infobox Nazi. I found it disrespectful that my assertion on the talk page of the situation was directly overridden in such a short space of time and in my revert or comment being ultra nice and respectful to him given the circumstances wasn't exactly my first thought. As Rexx says though we've spoken by email and we both agree that it isn't constructive to continue this arb case and won't get to the root of the problem and that discussion in a civil fashion should continue elsewhere.

My biggest concern overall is that this infobox issue has become a major site problem with the disputes and time wasting which can cause unnecessary inflammation and actions. I agree with what the arb decided on infobox issues but in practice this often doesn't work. The majority seem to support infoboxes, however seemingly empty they are and seem to see it as an essential piece of furniture, and as with the Sellers article and other, infoboxes typically end up being added regardless of whether the people who wrote the whole article want one. Given the basic cleanup work which is needed in most articles it's a time sink which is causing editors to leave or storm out in despair, zapping any energy or enthusiasm for the project they have left. I have a feeling that at some point infobox data will be controlled by wikidata and there'll be an option of whether to hide them or not and such disputes will become history at some point, but it might be too late and we'll lose more valuable editors in the meantime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting a statement, including hopefully an apology, from Dr Blofield. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely a procedural comment which does not depend on Dr. Blofeld's reply: reminders, just like admonishments, cannot be enforced directly; it's, of course, possible to ask for an amendment to the original case so that either an editor can be placed under a remedy which *would* then be enforceable or discretionary sanctions are authorised, but rebus sic stantibus hypothetical violations of the "editors reminded" remedy cannot lead to restrictions under our delegated authority, though it's certainly possible for an individual admin or the community to exercise their power to restrict users editing disruptively. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I'm often accused, with justification, of using too many legalisms on this page, but I guarantee that more than 99% of the readers here had to either look up "rebus sic stantibus" or skip over it. And even having looked it up, I am still not quite sure what it means in the context of what you were saying. It might be helpful if you could clarify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since we are discussing this, I take the opportunity to apologise if I sometimes use weird expressions; most of the times, it's just a sort of déformation professionelle; in this case, I used "rebus sic stantibus" to mean, literally, "with things being as they currently are". Also, RexxS, my use of "hypothetical" here was not meant to imply that using "infobox Nazism" is not a violation of our civility standards; as I wrote, I was merely trying to provide a comment concerning procedure, one that should have been valid, even in future, regardless of the circumstances of the case being examined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view here is that both editors (RexxS and Dr. Blofeld) have acted against the spirit of the remedy in question. Dr. Blofeld by the incivility he displayed, and RexxS and Dr. Blofeld by both turning the discussion in question into one about infoboxes in general, rather than about whether that specific article should or should not have an infobox. Nearly all the reasons given at the (very short) talk page discussion apply to infoboxes in general, so the discussion was clearly going to end up as a rehash of the same discussions had many times before on other articles. What both editors here need to do is focus more on remedy six: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." To encourage this, I am considering proposing a motion here to restrict both RexxS and Dr. Blofeld from adding or removing infoboxes from articles until such a time as a widespread community discussion has been held on the issue. They would both be encouraged to help set up and participate in such a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RexxS. That is bizarre. The talk page does now have lots more discussion that wasn't on the page or page version I was reading earlier. Presumably I ended up in some earlier version of the page history. I remember Blofeld's 10:34, 29 December 2013 comment being there, but not the comment you complained about. I can't locate the exact page version in question, but clearly what I suggested is no longer appropriate and I apologise for that (I won't strike the suggestion, as it may be needed at some future date). I did, during the case, suggest that what was needed was a list of examples of best practice, of collegial infobox discussions that focused on the needs of the specific articles, and examples of discussions where consensus was reached on the one hand for addition and on the other hand for removal of infoboxes. Is this discussion on this article's talk page going to end up being a good example to show people in future? My experience is that it is articles on people that often cause problems, as people (covering a vast proportion of Wikipedia's articles) are less easy to summarise in infobox form than, say, technical or scientific subjects. Also, to be clear, I see the arguments that infoboxes provide microformats as a generic argument that can apply to any article, so repeating that in every article infobox discussion is repetitive. It would be better to point to a Wikipedia-space essay that summarises the generic benefits of infoboxes, rather than repeating them every time. Ditto for the generic arguments used to argue for the removal of infoboxes. It is the repetition of such arguments across multiple article talk pages that was identified in the case as a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a restrictive motion, but to me a more concerning point here is the appearance of ownership Blofeld is applying to "his" articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Tea Party movement

Initiated by Xenophrenic (talk) at 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision

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

Statement by Xenophrenic

I am presently "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed." I have recently edited the James O'Keefe biography article, which I obviously do not see as falling under this restriction since O'Keefe has no relation to the Tea Party. My edits were also wholly unrelated to the Tea Party. However, another editor raised the question on the O'Keefe talk page which has prompted me to cease editing that article until I obtain clarification here. Please note: I see the phrase "Tea Party" does briefly appear elsewhere in the O'Keefe article, and I have no desire to circumvent the ArbCom case restrictions even inadvertantly, so I have to ask...

Does the article James O'Keefe qualify as related to the Tea Party movement for the purposes of this sanction? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox

This is where the "broadly construed" phrasing can get tricky. O'Keefe may not be "officially" assosciated with the Tea Party, but his mentor was Andrew Breitbart and his activities are pretty clearly aligned with the goals and values of the Tea Party. If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thargor Orlando

As the "other editor" in question, this is actually good guidance for those of us on the periphery. In this case, I raised the question not to get anyone in trouble (and I would hope that any admin/arb reading this would see it for what it is and not an attempt by Xenophrenic to skirt the boundaries of the ArbCom case), but because of this specific section in the article, which is about a video release noteworthy because of the NPR associate's comments on the Tea Party movement.

Looking back at the original case, it appears that ArbCom chose not to address the question of what "broadly construed" means. For the sake of reducing inter-editorial strife, I'm hoping some sort of guidance can come of this clarification request.

@User:AGK, if that's the case, there is no complaint. The question would then remain what "broadly construed" means when we're discussing an article that has a direct relationship to a noteworthy Tea Party situation as I have linked above. If "broadly construed" does not include articles with explicit Tea Party relationships within the text, what does it mean? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

"Tea Party" is often used in daily conversation in America imprecisely and usually pejoratively to indicate anyone sufficiently the right of American politics. The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts. James O'Keefe would seem to not qualify on that end, except that one of his major claims to fame is a video he released of an NPR executive speaking candidly about the Tea Party. Since the topic ban is on "all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" (emphasis added), the presence of the topic as a component of the article on James O'Keefe, activist, renders the Wikipedia-en page James O'Keefe under the topic ban. This is why topic bans are best written as editing subject bans and not page bans. I suggest that the Committee clarify or amend the wording of the topic ban to apply to edits concerning the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, and that the edits in question be allowed, although I think Xenophrenic is better advised to steer clear because of the specific history of O'Keefe's activism --Tznkai (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that someone might be concerned that making bans on a per subject of edit basis versus a per subject of page basis would allow an editor to say, make minor grammar changes in an area they were told to steer clear from. I think it is reasonably obvious that all edits to page concerning a topic are in fact edits concerning the topic.--Tznkai (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, broadly construed cannot also mean unpredictable and arbitrary. Does it also include "patriotism" since the Tea Party movement self identifies as patriotic? How about "Republicans" because they draw support from Republicans or "Democrats" because they are in opposition? How about taxes, a core issue? How about James Madison and the Federalist papers? How about Right-wing politics, conservativism, Edmund Burke? How about Christianity? How about Nazis, since sometimes some loudmouth decides that all of them are? How about white privilege, for the same reason? Evolution, the Bible, and the public education system, individually or as interrelated?
Political movements, by their nature, have an opinion about nearly everything, broadly construing them for anything they have thematic relevance with is not only absurd, it is cruel, and unnecessarily so. My definition is not exhaustive, since that is a mug's game, but it is hardly restrictive. Broadly construed was, I think more than anything a signal to administrators to be reasonable in invoking their jurisdiction. Now, I fear, it is a crutch for the lazy administrator and the vindictive partisan.--Tznkai (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, I believe you are exemplifying the problem of broadly construed in this context. You are not describing belief of the general public, but the broad constructions of the general leftward leaning politic interested in American politics, which you in turn wish for administrators to broadly construe.
Ultimately of course, the Committee (hopefully) knows best what it means, but I believe the most reasonable interpretation of what they say is in line with my elucidation above. All in all I advise fellow administrators to read "broadly construed" with considerable restraint, if only to defend against being used as chess pieces by article warriors, even if that is not what is happening this time. --Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond my Ken, you are of course free to speculate as you'd like on my off-Wiki political leanings, but my talk page or an e-mail is a more appropriate venue. As to construction of the topic, it should surprise absolutely no one that given any dichotomous divide, a group on one end will be more prone to identifying the other end with its least popular groups, while the home-team for that same group will be much more specific. Thus right-aligned persons will naturally be much more particular about the Tea Party than left aligned persons, and the "general public" doesn't really exist as a useful construction, and even if it did, it isn't neutral! This is the sort of danger lurking in general with broad constructions, but it is especially bad when considering political movements since political movements provoke passions and cover wide ground. From a neutral perspective, there is serious disagreement over what qualifies, both formally as the Tea Party, and their "attitude, behavior or politics." The approach Beyond my Ken advances here invites stereotypes and prejudices, two things we (ought to) try our damnedest to bury as editors.
I'm sure I'm quite a bit over the word limit, and I don't want to completely sidetrack with point-counterpoint, so if the clerks and Committee will indulge an old-in-wiki-years-fogey in summarizing his point: "broad construction" is asking for trouble in politically related arenas, well written per edit bans are better than page bans in such difficult ground, and the committee ought to encourage administrators to apply restraint and reason in interpreting this and any other ban language. Especially since an admin well grounded in policy often need not invoke topic bans when trouble is afoot.--Tznkai (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The suggestion by Tznkai that

The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts

flies squarely in the face of what "broadly construed" clearly means. Although, obviously, that phrase is (deliberately) imprecise, any clarification of its meaning to come from the committee must cast the widest possible net, and not be hamstrung by restrictive definitions such as Tznkai's. In this case, the "Tea Party" should include everyone Tzankai mentioned, as well as all those people to whom it is applied in the common understanding of its meaning.

The goal here is not to make some kind of socio-political point, but to reduce disturbance in the editing environment. To schieve that, "broadly construed" must mean what it says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tznkai:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."

Template:Nb10— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

If the general public or the press use "Tea Party" to describe a certain person, they do so because it seems to fit the person's attitude, behavior or politics, regardless of whatever their "official" status is. Such a person is more than likely to create the same possibility of disputatious editing, and should, therefore, be included in the "broadly construed" definition, which is, again, a definition to be used in regard to editing behavior only. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Tznkai: "Leftward leaning politic" - You are apparently approaching this from your own specific political POV, and wish to keep the definition of "broadly construed" as tightly constricted as possible for that reason. On the other hand, I am concerned about what is needed to keep editorial disruption in this subject area to a minimum, which I believe serves the Wikipedia community best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, Tznkai is arguing that the committee should interpret "broadly construed" as "strictly defined", which is to say, to essentially ignore the meaning of the phrase and neuter it entirely. To my mind, that does nothing to serve the purpose the remedy was designed to achieve, and, in fact, opens the door to further disruption of the type that brought about the arbitration in the first place. I would urge the committee not to follow this path. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Reading the entry, I did not see an explicit link between James O'Keefe personally and the Tea Party. He simply seems to be a Conservative activist. I would treat the article as excluded from the TPM topic bans, at least for now. AGK [•] 06:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xenophrenic, my advice here is similar to that stated by Beeblebrox: "If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away." I would add that if there is doubt you could also ask for clarification before editing any articles that include mentions of the Tea Party. If you have asked beforehand, that will help mollify any concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts align Carcharoth's on the matter of whether there is doubt. As for the case in hand, I think if it comes down to hairsplitting to justify whether something is in the scope of the topic ban or not... it can be included in 'broadly construed'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=588620966"