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 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 4 November 2014 (→‎Clarification request: WP:ARBAB: archiving closed clarification request). 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
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/1/0
[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 and appeal: Discretionary sanctions alerts none none 1 November 2014
Amendment request: Privatemusings none (orig. case) 26 October 2014
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

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 and appeal: Discretionary sanctions alerts

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
WP:AC/DS

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

Statement by Sandstein

Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, alerted me about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this as a "notification" on the case page, which he later changed to a "warning". Judging by an earlier comment, he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately reinstated by an anonymous user, 41.223.50.67.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg confirmed he knew. The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in WP:AC/DS.

It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the incorrect impression in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert.

To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The speedy deletion I made was compliant with WP:CSD#G5, and does not conflict with the prior AfD because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit.

Prior to making this request, I discussed the issue with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he invited me to submit this matter to this forum for review.  Sandstein  16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I said elsewhere, I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement.

As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures.  Sandstein  18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on that basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further.

This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about admin actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone.  Sandstein  21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

To my mind, Sandstein is obviously 'WP:INVOLVED' in the current DRV about Polandball, however not surprisingly he claims to be uninvolved. To quickly recap, he is the admin who deleted the article at DRV; when notified of the DRV, he decided to issue a DS alert to the person who initiated the DRV, and speedy delete another related article which had survived an AFD and was mentioned on the current DRV. When User:Nick undid the speedy deletion, Sandstein also demanded that Nick redelete it. IMO, this is fairly clear battleground mentality, only including the use of admin buttons for good measure. All quite unnecessary, as a sizable chunk of the community would participate in the DRV, so his voice there would be heard. It is very strange logic that Sandstein felt he had to alert user:Josve05a about discretionary sanctions, but objects to me feeling the same way about his own editing/admining in this topical area. He claims his alert to user:Josve05a was not an admin action (otherwise he would surely run afoul of 'WP:INVOLVED'), but then cant see he is participating as a normal contributor. Maybe he considers a DS alert to be a friendly chat, when he gives one to someone else ...

Anyway, the nature of this clarification is the use of alerts and the logging of them on case pages. Obviously some serious saber rattling would have quickly occurred had I sanctioned Sandstein, so I went with an alert only with a stern message with the hope he could see how others were viewing it. He didnt; he continued to post aggressively. When I found the right DS alert template and posted it, the edit filter notice reminded me to check if he had been notified any time in the last 12 months, and press Save again if I was sure it had not occurred. As I didnt find any prior notices (in edit filter log or on talk page archives), I proceeded to save the alert. I then went to the relevant arbcase to log it as is the usual procedure. I knew DS had been standardised earlier this year, and was pleasantly surprised by the edit filter logging, but it didnt occur to me that alerts would not be logged. The arbcase log for the EE case had all the signs of logging being part of the standard procedure.

Since Sandstein objected to the logging, I went and had a look at other cases and found quite a few examples of the log including notifications and warnings; I did offer to give Sanstein examples of such notices and warnings, but we are here now. Here are the ones that I've quickly found in arbcom case logs since April 2014.

If it is no longer appropriate to log alerts/notices/warnings on the arbcom case, an edit filter should be added to ensure admins are aware of this change. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, when you put a notice on user talk:Josve05a, were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user? If it was the "editor Sandstein" who popped that friendly note on user talk:Josve05a, and not the "admin Sandstein", can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to user talk:Josve05a with your "editor Sandstein" hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions? Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I've nothing to add to the clarification and amendment section, but I will state, as I have repeatedly said, I'm really getting fed up watching good content be deleted and destroyed as a result of battleground mentality. It genuinely makes me sad watching material that people have put their heart and soul into, being deleted because it was written by this week's bogeyman. Nick (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions for further information. Regards, Nick (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

If the DS alert is going to be used without a sting it has to be used for everyone all the time. Its common for editors to know an article is under DS, but this isn't something one can assume. Of course, the use of the alert can been abused and can be seen as threatening. Use that is universal will over time render the warning as commonplace and standard, will de sting. Whether it was used in this instance as an implied threat, I don't know or care. Behind many of the actions I've seen against editors over the years are threats, some so complex as to be almost invisible. I know how that feels, so am not condoning anything that threatens but unless we deal with the surface level of an action and ignore assumption we will never get to supportive editing situations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

One of the goals of the recent reforms which turned "warnings" to "alerts" was to remove the stigma of the warning/alert. Apparently, that stigma is alive and well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alanscottwalker

Giving a "warning" is an administrative function. Its only purpose is administration of the website. No, a User does not have to have privileges to do much of administration on Wikipedia. The idea is anathema to the community, which expects good users to administer, even to requiring such at RfAdmin, moreover, the website would not function, if users did not step up. So no, giving a warning does not mean one is INVOLVED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fut.Perf.

John Vandenberg's actions in this case are wrong on so many levels at once it's hard to know where to start. About his technical misunderstanding of the nature of alerts and the non-logging of "warnings", I think all has been said. More importantly, his warning was wrong on its merits. As for the speedying of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (the only issue he actually mentioned in the warning), Sandstein was processing a valid G5 speedy; the fact that there had been an earlier "keep" AfD is obviously irrelevant as long as the facts justifying the speedy weren't known and discussed during the AfD. As for Sandstein's actions in the Polandball issue, which seems to be what John Vandenberg is really more concerned about, the claim that he was showing an inadmissable battleground attitude is utter nonsense when you look at his actual, very measured and balanced, comments in that DRV. Finally, the "warning", whether logged or not, was also out of process. A "warning" under DS means that I, an administrator, will hand out a block or topic ban to you, the person I am warning, if you repeat the behaviour I am warning you over. Does John Vandenberg seriously believe he would be entitled to block Sandstein if he did a G5 speedy like this again in the future? That beggars belief. Even if John Vandenberg had legitimate reasons to be concerned over Sandstein's actions, then his recourse would be not to impose "sanctions" on him, but to ask Arbcom to review Sandstein's actions; that, however, is not in any way inside the scope of what the DS are about, and therefore also doesn't belong in the DS logs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Neotarf

This request is eerily similar to this one made some time ago, where four editors were given "civility warnings" by Sandstein, apparently at random. The result of the clarification request was a delinking of the four names in the ARBATC case page. If any action other than delinking is recommended for the current situation, it would only be reasonable to revisit the other situation as well. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an alarming failure here to grasp the distinction between the two relevant procedural entities. Cautions or warnings are sanctions and need logged; alerts (previously known as notices) are not sanctions and carry no implicit accusation of guilt. These two used to be more or less the same thing. In the recent update of procedures, they were split off and it is wrong to interchange them. John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware per point II of the relevant procedure and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him. I accept JV's claim that he was not aware of the changes in procedure, but I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes. If you do not, you can be sanctioned by the committee, and given that this process is hardly in its infancy you are likely to find the committee exercises this right.

    On the complaint of JV about Sandstein, my position is that it cannot be heard in this venue. With the procedural confusion clarified (not that there should have been any in the first place), I suggest JV take this complaint up, perhaps with a handful of other administrators, directly with Sandstein. Neither party appears to have made an adequate effort to resolve this together, despite, as administrators, being obliged to do so. Should those attempts prove futile, a proper case request should then be filed. AGK [•] 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I essentially agree with AGK. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Privatemusings

Initiated by Ponjuseme (talk) at 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle Sockpuppetry
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Privatemusings (diff of notification of this thread on Privatemusings' talk page)
Information about amendment request
  • [1]
  • In the principle of sock-puppetry, I suggest that a complete prevention of alternate accounts from editing in "discussions internal to the project" is vague and outdated. This is due to a large portion of editing being taken out of the article namespace and into other places. As well, in regard to disclosed socks, this would prevent connected I request that this principle be amended to only prevent !voting in areas that are heavily influenced by !votes and unrelated to content/conduct issues, such at requests for adminship, requests for bureaucrat, ArbCom elections, policy debates, and others like that, as well as prevention of !voting in any way whatsoever where a main or a sock has already !voted, such as in RfCs, AfDs, and others. In regards to undisclosed socks, this would also entail a complete interaction ban between the sock and the main account, as well as a ban from the sock and the main account participating in any discussions together. This would not change any other requirements for alternate accounts.

Statement by Ponjuseme

In this case, Privatemusings made problematic BLP edits, and used multiple sockpuppets in order to influence discussions in which he was involved. The principle relating to sockpuppetry explicitly stated that "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates."

  1. This is exceedingly vague, and could prevent anything from banal talk page discussions, to directly influencing RFAs about the sock puppeteer.
  1. Editing project pages is a vital part of Wikipedia, for example, take the case of a person who wants to edit Wikipedia, but already has an account directly linked with them. If they were to participate in any discussions based on content with that account, this may draw negative attention (such as if a devoutly religious person wanted to edit and take positions in areas that conflicts with their publicly professed religious beliefs, and would lead to them being ostracized if connected with their real life persona). In regards to asking why they couldn't just edit just the article space, this hypothetical person might sometimes want to comment on an RfC relating to an article they were editing, or join, for example, the WP:PORN project and discuss pornography related articles, in which that editing may not be highly regarded by that user's religious peers. They might also want to AfD certain topics relating to their religion that they don't feel are notable, but would be pressured otherwise to not AfD.
  1. This was a principle made in 2008, 6 years ago, when many things considered "internal to the project" we see today didn't exist or weren't considered in this principle. For example, the PROD process is in article space, but is it internal to the project even though it is visible to anyone looking at the page?

This is a specific, unambiguous case of a user who misused alternate accounts, and the principle made appears to be overly broad.

Statement by JzG

The view that people should use only one account in meta-discussion is a principle widely endorsed by the community and is not, I think, reliant on this case or the arbitration committee more generally. The guidance on alternate accounts is reasonably clear and the majority of dispute over what is and is not permitted is, frankly, generated by wikilawyering sockpuppeteers. I fail to see anything requiring change here, especially since the initiator is a rather obvious sockpuppet.

I have some idea who the sockmaster might be, and they are currently blocked and I think banned. Nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If there is a desire to change policy, I think it would be better raised on the relevant policy or guidelines talkpage, rather than in discussion of a principle from a 7-year-old case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the substance, although this isn't an issue for us, for what it's worth I generally agree with GorillaWarfare's comment below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this discussion should take place on the talkpage of the policy in question. I also feel that the policy is too vague. I feel that, for example, a legitimate sockpuppet used for privacy reasons should be allowed to edit deletion discussions in the sock's area of focus, of course assuming no overlap with other accounts operated by the same user. The current policy only specifies "internal discussions", and the argument could be made in either direction for whether deletion discussions qualify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may have come from an arb case, but the encyclopedia was different 7 years ago. The right place to make such changes are at the talk page of the relevant policy, as NYB says. WormTT(talk) 10:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues and propose to speedily close this request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed as well. The proper place to discuss a policy change is at the Village Pump or the appropriate talk page. The proper way to do it, until and unless a change is made, is to discuss it using one's primary account. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The principle in question has been subsumed into community policy. Arguments to clarify it would be best made on the policy page. AGK [•] 23:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, this is not the right venue for proposing this particular change, and it is doubtful there is any merit to re-evaluating a seven year old case's language when it is n't particularly relevant anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=632410300"