Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Request for clarification: EEML | none | none | 7 October 2010 |
| Request for clarification: Speed of light | none | none | 26 September 2010 |
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement|Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement]] | none | none | 12 September 2010 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: EEML
Initiated by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk at 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Piotrus
I am seeking a clarification of the topic ban currently in effect to my person that states: "[I am] topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed".
Few days ago I asked a public question of the Committee here, proposing a potential solution for the ongoing disputes in EE area. I did so believing that a good-faithed comment on how to improve dispute resolution (not concerning articles) does not violate my topic ban. Now I have second thoughts, and I would appreciate a ruling on whether I was allowed to post there on this subject and whether I can keep participating in the discussion (or should I self-revert all my edits there?).
My rationale for thinking I am allowed to start and participate in that discussion is as follows:
- it is not a process discussion about EE content (I am topic banned from "articles about Eastern Europe" and discussions of them), but a (good-faithed, no-parties named) discussion about generic editor behavior in that area and how it may be improved. I always understood the "process discussions" part of the ban as ban from content-related things like AfDs, FAs, WikiProject pages and such, and the word "same" to refer to any "articles about EE", but not a ban from being able to discuss the EEML case itself (which would obviously prevent me from feeling the amendment or clarification requests) and wider, non-article specific circumstances surrounding it (which is what that particular discussion is);
- my thoughts are based on the discussion(s) seen at my Amendment request, where I am obviously allowed to post, but which is not the best place for threaded discussion, hence another place had to be found and I concluded that the public Committee discussion page is the best forum for it;
- it is a question directed (publicly) to the Committee, on the official Committee pages, hence I hope it is obvious it was never intended to be a "topic ban evasion" or such;
Hence I believe my post there and subsequent comments do not violate my topic ban. Would this be a correct belief?
If my participation in that thread is not proper, I am ready to self-revert at any time. Also, till such a time as there is consensus here that I can participate there, I will not do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
Request for clarification: Speed of light
Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: [[1]]
- Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Statement by your Hell in a Bucket
There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in recent discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. [[2]]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Risker, I can understand the meatpuppet part of things. Hadn't really thought of it that way. This however is only one instance that the whiff of puppetry has been shown. Is there anything else? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Count Iblis
Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and he didn't see any problems.
Detailed explanations and responses
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert here a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
More to the point (replying to Protonk was a huge diversion, but unfortunately it is necesary to waste a huge amount of time to not let false claims go unchallenged), the nature of the topic area (physics, not politics) and my contributions to this topic area (I have made many edits of a technical nature) should have made it clear that there cannot be any "advocacy" to speak of as far as editing articles is concerned. No hair on my head would even think of arguing for Brews topic ban to be lifted/shortened/modified or whatever, if I didn't believe that he can do something useful here. Lately, I've tried to convice Brews that he is the ideal person to make good quality contributions to WikiBooks. This whole overreaction about my actions doesn't bode well for the climate change case. If straightforward issues cannot be assessed and acted on properly, then there is zero chance things will go well after the climate change concludes and the discretionary sanctions regime comes into force. I predict the same mess as we've seen on the General Sanctions board. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Obviously ArbCom has forseen the possibility of the trouble I'm referring to above and this is why Remedy 3 is being proposed also for good editors like Polargeo and KimDabelsteinPetersen, but I don't think that will matter much. Count Iblis (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
- The reality that many people see advocacy/meatpuppetry for Brews
That's perhaps the case, but it is always without evidence. The core part of Wikipedia are its articles, and there clearly haven't been any problems there. There are no brainless defenses of Brews edits, like reverting to Brews version without good arguments (I think I only made one revert to a verson preferred by Brews in the last few months for good reasons). Then on peripheral issues in meta discussions etc. one can get certain perceptions, but then that part of Wikipedia is similar to any other social medium where false ideas can easily spread and take hold. Compare to Obama not being born in the US, User talk:Orly taitz is quite sure about this. Count Iblis (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Brews ohare
The position of Risker echoed by SirFozzie is unsupported nonsense. As I was to be absent for several weeks, and expected Blackburne to recommend an article for deletion that I had created just prior to leaving, I asked Count Iblis to link my support for the article on its Talk page should the AfD arise. That is all that was meant by his "acting as my advocate", an unfortunate choice of words. He was simply a messenger. Brews ohare (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Although Protonk disavows any connection between advocacy and motive, it is apparent that the enforcement of a ban against advocacy would be unnecessary if it were thought that simple statement of of arguments supporting a point of view were involved. Rather, this ArbCom action suppressing advocacy supposes some objectionable disruption that must be stopped, which as it happens was never the case. This ban was censorship of dissent, not an action to protect WP. Brews ohare (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Protonk (talk)
I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case. It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy). I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors . When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by WGFinley
I was recently working on the AE case involving Brews referenced earlier. I saw Count Iblis' advocacy statement there and misread the status of the numerous sanctions on this case. I thought that Count was still prohibited from advocacy of Brews and I blocked him for 24 hours and notified him on his talk page. Within 20 minutes of this action my talk page was beset by multiple parties namely Dr.K and Hell In A Bucket. After things calmed down a bit I was able to determine the sanctions were lifted and I removed the block.
I wish to chime in for two reasons:
- The decision page for this case is virtually impossible for an admin trying to do his job to follow. There needs to be a way to either rollup or break out sanctions that have been rescinded, modified, etc.
- I am unfamiliar with the totality of this case and its numerous changes but one thing remains clear, it appears several users are acting in concert, whether that is to the level of being a meatpuppet for Brews I leave that for the committee to decide.
--WGFinley (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. Risker (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Echo Risker's comments above, and note the current AE request regarding this current area. Count's words may have been "unfortunate", as Brews Ohare as stated, but it reflects a reality that many of us see, that Count Iblis, Hell Inn a Bucket, and other editors act as advocates/meatpuppets for Brews Ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think what Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are missing here is that when they routinely show up to defend Brews, at length, in various venues, it begins to wear on everyone and regardless of their intent, looks like advocacy. If you have real interest in helping another editor, assisting them in resolving their problems is always going to actually help - pretending those problems don't exist and they can do no wrong just makes the problem worse. Shell babelfish 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement
Initiated by olive (talk) at 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Jmh649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Future Perfect At Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notified: TimidGuy[3], Future Perfect At Sunrise[4]Jmh649[5]Cirt[6]Edith Siruis Lee[7]
Statement:Littleolive oil
I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration ruling [8] that impacts a restriction placed on me.[9]
A. Clarification of “warning” per this section of the TM arbitration:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question Shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.
Jmh649 (Doc James) made a unilateral edit. [10] I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. [11]He warned me citing WP:UNDUE [12] and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions[13]
- How can an editor be warned for something that isn’t wrong?
- Should a warning per the arbitration be specific to the error the editor has made? Doc James warns me for WP:UNDUE, although never explains what he means, but then asks to have me sanctioned for editing against consensus and for edit warring.
- Who warns? Editors involved in a discussion, uninvolved editors/admins?
B. Reverting against consensus in an RfC: [14]
The RfC was not closed, [15] and no consensus had been shown. Doc James called this edit warring. I had told him on the talk page I would only revert once should he want to revert me. [16]. I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead. [17]
C. Edit warring:
Doc James uses these five edits across almost a week, but there is nothing close to violating 3RR. Edith’s edit is not the same content as any of the other “reverts.
1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [18] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors
2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [19]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A
3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [20] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A
4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[21] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…
5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[22] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B
6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [23] 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C
I don’t see how this is a violation at all, or evidence of tag-team editing. And there was no consensus. Shouldn’t “that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles." from the arbitration be adhered to?
D. Additional irregularities:
- In the AE appeal, despite a note explaining I would be able to comment later in the day, FP sanctioned me before I could defend myself, and the case was closed. Was there “gross misconduct”?
- I was sanctioned with two other editors. Per the TM arbitration neither sockpuppetry nor meat puppetry was shown, but the sanction suggests we are one editor. The restriction was given with no time limit.
E. Request to have the restriction overturned:
Summary per arbitrator comments:
- Is there a definitive position on whether an editor has to be warned by an uninvolved editor, and does that warning have to be made by an admin. Could the arbitration committee please amend and then post the present wording to include whatever that position is. The TM Arbitration was set out to guide editors now and in the future in editing the numerous articles on TM. It seems fair for editors to know how and why they can be sanctioned and how they can deal with other editors. Clearly wording the decision should make the appeal processes easier to deal with in the future.
Either:
A.Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.” (present wording)
B. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved editor advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.”
Or:
C. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.
- No one dealt with my appeal to look at the legitimacy of the violations and sanctions against against me. I assume I'll have to go elsewhere.
- Thanks very much the the arbitrators for their comments and insights.(olive (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC))
Statement by Will Beback
FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), has requested an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee. Will Beback talk 06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- This does seem to be an appeal rather than a request for clarification, and if so it duplicates the WP:AE appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee. While it may not have been the intent, it has the effect of forum shopping. I think it would be appropriate to merge the appeals and deal with them in one location, either WP:AE or WP:ARA. Will Beback talk 07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- To Newyorkbrad and other drafters of ArbCom remedies: The more tricky clauses that get added to remedies, the more room there is for misunderstanding and for wikilawyering. There is a standard WP:Discretionary sanction. It's not clear why this case requires a special variation. Unless someone can explain what is unique about this case, I'd like to propose an amendment to the case replacing this unique sanction with the standard discretionary sanction. Otherwise editors, admins, functionaries, and arbitrators are likely to get caught in more enforcement "gotchas". Will Beback talk 01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the TM discretionary sanctions remedy, followed by the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions remedy.
Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to comply may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision shall not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about administrator involvement are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so.
-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
.
Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.
To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
-Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Could the ArbCom please clarify the purpose of all the additional text in the TMM decision? In what way was the TMM case different from the R&I case that it required a sanction procedure five times as long? Will Beback talk
Statement by Jmh649
User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Cirt
- Chronology of recent appeals
- 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
- 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.
- Notes
- It seems quite odd that both of these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts (see [25] and [26]) filed appeals, at two different locations, on the same day, within less than two hours of each other.
- This seems like forumshopping of very similar requests to multiple Wikipedia-process pages at the same time, and also possible meat-puppetry as a tactic, initiating multiple debates about what is substantively the same issue.
- Question
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement
- Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with this comment [27], by Will Beback - this request by Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), above, does indeed seem like forumshopping. It also appears to be more of an appeal than a request for "clarification" about anything in particular, rather a form of protestation. As such, it should be merged into the already-existing and duplicate-appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), on WP:AE, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Fladrif
This "Request for Clarification" appears not to seek clarification at all, but rather to appeal the AE sanctions. The arguments being presented do not seek clarification of anything, but instead argue that the sanctions were improperly and improvidently imposed. The appealing party admits as much, stating that the issues are "lack of evidence of wrongdoing" and "lack of following procedure by the sanctioning admin". Cirt's observation that this request appears to be forum shopping is essentially admitted, when the appealing party states that she hopes that her request will be dealt with "here in this more neutral environment". Apparently she believes that the AE Appeals process is not a neutral environment, and thus wants to avoid having her complaint heard there. Such forum shopping should not be permitted. These sanctions were not the result was not some rogue admin acting precipitously without evidence, process or justification: at least three uninvolved administrators strongly agreed with the sanctions that were imposed. [28][29][30] They should not be lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- @Roger, Brad, Rex The central fact here is that not one, not two, but three uninvolved, independent, neutral admins agreed that, under the plain meaning of the actual language of the TM ArbCom decision, the three sanctioned editors had been sufficiently warned about their editing conduct, and that their continued editing conduct after such fair warning was so clearly and eggregiously in violation of the requirements of the ArbCom decision as to warrant (i) a temporary topic-ban for one editor, and (ii) a collective 1RR restriction on the three sanctioned editors. They were asked to reconsider the decision, did, and determined that on further reflection, the sanctions were even more clearly warranted. A fourth uninvolved, neutral admin has agreed that the sanctions should not be lifted and denied the appeal. For LOO and ESL to claim, as they do now, that (i) they didn't do anything wrong and (ii) even if they did, the wrong person gave them notice so they shouldn't be expected to have to pay attention to the warning, is WP:WIKILAWYERING at its worst. To try to claim now that the only sanction that can be imposed after an extensive ArbCom proceeding in which every named editor was put on notice to clean up their act, and a clear and repeated violation of the requirements of that decision, is yet another warning is just nonsensical. Every dog gets one bite. Not three. Fladrif (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Edith Sirius Lee
I am challenging asking User:JamesBWatson to provide diffs of actual policy violation. Having a POV and trying to collaborate with all other involved editors so that it has its place together with other POVs in respect of NPOV does not break any policy. That is all what Olive did. It is also the only thing that TimidGuy and I did. So, I challenge him. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I am thankful to James B. Watson for his answer. This clarification was very much needed. Similarly, the administrator who closed my appeal could not say that I violated the policy, and he had seen the case made by Doc James. The policy rules pretty much every aspect of an editor behaviour, AGF, etc. So, if we do not know that there are policy violations, why there were sanctions at the first place? Can a non involved administrator provide any diffs of policy violation? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact that no non involved administrator could provide a diff of policy violation says it all. Doc James regularly referred to the opinion expressed by James BWatson, but this opinion was taken out of context and it was not based on any policy violation. Fladrif and Will Beback constantly presented the situation as if it was obvious that Olive, TimidGuy and myself were guilty of misconduct, but never a non involved administrator could present an actual diff of policy violation to verify this. The administrator that enforced the 1RR sanction and the one that rejected my appeal, both admit in their own way that they acted without considering whether or not there were actual policy violation. In particular, the administrator that enforced the sanction said that he had the power to act "out of the blue", and he did so. The bottom line is that there was no policy violation, a lot of talking about general principles, a lot of opinions, but nothing based on facts. If any non involved administrator can prove me wrong by providing diffs of policy violation that he has sincerely evaluated by himself, looking at the real facts, I am asking him to do so. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Keithbob
Accusations of sock and meatpuppetry were evaluated in detail on the TM ArbCom and were found to have no merit. Everyone is an independent editor. I therefore object to the continued attempts by some editors, to lump together other editors and paint them with one black brush. Assertions of forum shopping and coordinated editing appear to have no basis in fact. Each editor is unique and their behavior deserves to be examined individually. This current filing is one example. Littleolive oil should not be punished because another editor happens to make here own appeal near the same time. I urge the Arb Committee to look at this Request carefully. It is my understanding that Littleolive oil has outlined her case, not as an appeal attempt, but to demonstrate the clear need for clarification on the Enforcement policies as outlined in the ArbCom decision. Such clarification will then have direct bearing on any future appeal(s), either by Littleolive oil or others, as well as any future enforcement actions for other involved editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's surprising to me to see that an editor, who seems knowledgeable about law based on their edit history, would be so eager to discount the clarification given here by Committee members and urge them to disregard an individual editor's rights to due process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by RexxS
Thanks are due to Brad and Roger for the clarification of the intentions behind the wording. As a consequence, I believe I am correct that a request for AE under discretionary sanctions in this area now should be a request for a warning in the first instance – unless the editor in question is a named party and is accused of gross misconduct. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Response to Fladrif
- I agree completely with the sentiment of what you say, and I'd always want to see neutral, uninvolved admins exercising their judgement boldly in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I completely endorse your actions. However, following Roger and Brad's comments, I merely observe that any party who may be even tangentially involved is going to have to find a neutral, uninvolved administrator to issue a warning and give the other editor a chance to amend their behaviour, before they can present a request for enforcement. In other words, unless a neutral, uninvolved, experienced third party happens to have already noticed a certain behaviour and given a warning, requests for enforcement in future will end up being a two-stage process. --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by JamesBWatson
I am here because I have been asked to respond to Edith Sirius Lee, who has "challenged" me (I would have preferred "asked") to "provide diffs of actual policy violation". I never said that there were any policy violations, I merely explained that I thought I was being asked to support an "adversarial approach", and that I was not willing to do so. There may or may not have been policy violations: I have not said and do not intend to say anything one way or the other on that question. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum. Clerks, please close and make sure that any relevant info is copied as appropriate. — Coren (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was the arbitrator who drafted the sentence about giving warnings before imposing sanctions (in another case, but it's been adopted into the text of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy). What I had in mind in drafting it, though I suppose it isn't as clear as it could be, is a warning given by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute. The purpose, which I hope is obvious, is to avoid anyone claiming "I didn't know I was at risk of sanctions" or "I didn't realize that a neutral, experienced person thought there was something wrong with my editing." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is anything further requested of the committee here? If there are no further postings in the near future, I believe this can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am grateful to Brad for his clarification of the intended underlying meaning: I certainly interpreted it to mean that the warning should come from a neutral third-party and should give the warnee an opportunity to address the conduct. Roger Davies talk 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Catching up belatedly on this, the purpose of the neutral warning is to avoid a revolving door approach ("here's your warning, here's your summons", delivered in the same envelope) and thus reduce the prospect of biting newcomers either to the topic or the encyclopedia. However, that scarcely applies here and I don't think there's much doubt that in this instance the editors involved have had ample and sufficient warnings by a variety of other means. Roger Davies talk 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Who warned who is a complete red herring here (though I don't disagree with the best practices mentioned above). Frankly I don't understand how editors who were involved in a case can later claim they were unaware of the discretionary sanctions or should have received better/more warnings or that someone should have more clearly explained to them what the problem was. All of the editors who appealed these sanctions were involved in the case, repeatedly warned before things got to the level of a case and should by this time know how Wikipedia works. The findings in the case they were involved in clearly set out the problems in the area, the relevant policies and what sanctions might happen if things continued to be a problem - exactly how much more clear could anyone be? Shell babelfish 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)