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 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 31 December 2013 (→‎Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): moving two RAN comments to his section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Infoboxes none none 28 December 2013
Clarification request: Tea Party movement none (orig. case) 17 December 2013
Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) none (orig. case) 4 December 2013
Amendment request: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute none (orig. case) 31 December 2013

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

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

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

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

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]

Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 07:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Remedies

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

Statement by Fram

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Richard Arthur Norton got three sanctions and one admonishment, all intended to stop his copyright violations. Strangely enough, no actual sanction for making copyright violations in the mainspace was included, although the admonishment said "He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing."

Since then, he hasn't edited a lot until very recently, when he started creating a lot of articles in his userspace, mostly related to subjects where the sources are from 1915 or thereabouts, and the chance of copyright violations is smaller. He has also edited the mainspace, and when he strayed into more recent events, he again immediately created a copyright violation, following the text and structure of the source much too closely. It's not a large one, but it is worrying. Is this sanctionable under the ArbCom cae admonishment, or does it need standard admin sanctions?

Richard's full text (with link to the source):

  • " In the 2011 American superhero film "Captain America: The First Avenger" as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey."

Copyrighted source[3]:

  • "As Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a flag-clad supersoldier, he is constantly rejected due to his numerous physical ailments and rail-thin build. In order to keep enlisting, he has to constantly lie about his hometown. One of the towns the Brooklyn native uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey."

@SilkTork: no, my request here was more about "if you violate a restriction, you get reported at AE; but if you violate an admonishment (which was the basis for the restrictions, and which has a block threat in it), where do you get reported? No problem in taking it to AE (or AN or ANI or whatever), but it wasn't clear to me where this was supposed to go. Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN: first, there was no indication in your post that you were restoring older content, which is itself problematic. I didn't check whether you reinserted some older post made by someone else, why would I? Anyway, if you reinsert text, you take responsability for it. Claiming that because Alansohn didn't remove it as a copyright violation, you were free to reinsert it is not a valid defense. But in this case, it is worse, you didn't simply resinsert it, you added the source, so you should have seen that the text you reinserted and the source were basically identical. If you are not able to spot such similarities when sourcing two sentences to a short article, then we have a problem. If you did spot the similarities but didn't see a problem with them, then you have an even bigger problem. Fram (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@All: At User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#File:Boelckeo.JPG, where I warned RAN about a technical violation of his restrictions, which I didn't bring here (something which was not really appreciated however), he compared me to Javert ("You certainly are the Javert of Wikipedia."), which I considered a personal attack and stated as much in my replies there. For him to repeat this here, in his reply, repeatedly, is unacceptable behaviour. I try to make comments about the edits, not the editor, and certainly not in such a deliberately provocative manner. Can someone remind RAN that such comments are not acceptable? Fram (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: don't be daft. When you add a quote in quotes, with the source, then you aren't making a copyright violation (if it short and relevant for the discussion, as it was here). I didn't claim the text as my own: RAN did. Please don't disrupt ArbCom pages to make an incorrect point, like you did here. I've reverted your change. Fram (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Norton

User:Javert User:Fram is 1/3 correct. User:Commander edit on December 3, 2013‎ added "In the 2011 American superhero film 'Captain America: The First Avenger' as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey." It was deleted as unreferenced by User:Alansohn. It was not deleted as a copyright violation. I then restored it and added the reference in this edit on December 3, 2013‎. If User:Alansohn had deleted it as a copyright violation and not as unreferenced, I would not have restored it. Kudos for User:Javert User:Fram for detecting it, but it would be nice if he showed the whole story of the edit. Instead he showed 1/3 of three edits in succession, as a "gotcha" moment, to get me banned from Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe this would be a good time to consider lifting my ban on article creation in Wikipedia space. I have 90 articles waiting in my user space at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and I am sure User:Fram has already looked at every edit in the creation of them in the hopes of getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia. If he had found a problem he would have mentioned it here already.

@Hobit: Don't forget where he recently warned me after I adjusted the contrast on an image already loaded in Wikipedia. It is clear there is animosity and he wants to get me permanently banned and has been working toward that goal ever since I had my first run-in with him at AFD several years ago. I think an interaction ban would be in the best interest of both of us. That way he can spend more time editing and less time watching every edit I make. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: If you think Patch Media is an unreliable news source, you should work to have it blacklisted. Patch media is a hyperlocal news outlet owned by AOL. The writers are underpaid, but payed, and there is editorial vetting of articles. It is not a personal blog. And of course, anyone who saw the movie would recognize that is correct and not in need of a retraction by Patch. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

@Newyorkbrad - I don't quite see how you can agree with both SilkTork's and Salvio's comments as they appear to me to be somewhat contradictory. Could you explicate?> Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Alansohn

I've never been a fan of these fleeting references to a place, usually of the sort that reads "On Glee, Adam Lambert's character, Elliott 'Starchild' Gilbert mentioned that he was originally from Paramus, NJ", which I removed in this edit. A statement about Captain America had been added several times, which I removed each time as an unsourced fleeting mention( see here, here for a few recent examples). Most recently, it had been reinserted here. After I had removed it (yet again) here, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reinserted the material in this edit, finally adding the reliable and verifiable source needed to support the claim, one that specifically mentions the movie and associates it directly with Paramus. I was still wary, but I looked at the source and came to the conclusion that it supported the statement. If I had felt that it hadn't been an appropriate source, I would have removed it; It was appropriately reliable and verifiable. I read the source word for word and if I had thought there was a WP:COPYVIO issue, I would have removed it; I didn't see a COPYVIO issue. User:Fram's analysis shows that there is some overlap between the source and the material that had been added to the article, but this is at worst a close paraphrase, and the close paraphrase was by User:Commander edit. RAN's actions were intended to add the source that I had specifically indicated as missing, and if I hadn't deleted the edit as unsourced there would be zero issue here; RAN would have only been adding the source, not assuming responsibility for Commander edit's edit with what may be a close paraphrase. I do understand how an editor could see this as a copyright violation or a violation of arbitration terms, but having been personally responsible for the edit that effectively burdened RAN with the claim of a COPYVIO issue, this was not in any way an effort by RAN to insert material in violation of a copyright, but rather appears clearly to me to be an effort to finally add a source to the article for a claim that had been added over and over again without one. RAN deserves credit both for his efforts to address the concerns raised via arbitration and for his efforts to add appropriate references to an unsourced statement. That the two issues sadly overlap and combine in one claimed incident is at worst an inadvertent reinsertion of someone else's possible close paraphrase, and is simply not the type of COPYVIO that is relevant to the arbitration enforcement. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NE Ent

I personally don't care about copyright to the extent many Wikipedians seem to. It's not going to be "The end of Wikipedia." (Fair use, no economic damages necessary to win a case in court, DMCA...)

But if RAN's reversion with a source of a close paraphrase is an inadvertent copyvio, logically Fram's copypaste of the full quote is an intentional one. (I've removed it; will be interesting to see if any reverts the removal and what justification they provide.). NE Ent 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually -- just learned this from a similar discussion on ANI -- policy Wikipedia:NFCC#9 states fairly clearly copyrighted material is only allowed in article space (except for exemptions, which do not currently list this forum). NE Ent 03:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hobit

I'm running on very little sleep, but I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. First, while NE Ent's point about Fram's copywrite violation was perhaps meant tongue-in-cheek, it does bring up a very relevant point. Fram quoted the article in it's entirety to make his point and no one batted an eye. If it were a 2 page document, I think folks would have rather rapidly redacted it (and I doubt Fram would have done any such thing). But no one (other than NE Ent) seemed to mind even though the case for fair use is much weaker here--there's no way all the points of WP:NFCC are met here. I'd argue that it's because it is such a short quote.

There is serious discussion about sanctioning someone for that short a quote which was simply restored. We've got a respected editor who reviewed the edit and saw nothing amiss either. Shall we sanction him also? He too checked the source.

I feel that RAN is 24601. Yes he broke the law. But now he is being persecuted for things when others (Fram in this case) are doing even worse things in front of ARBCOM. The point isn't that Fram has done anything horribly wrong, the point is that what Fram did is in every way worse (entire article directly quoted, not in article space, etc.) and no one cared. It's like yelling at someone for talking too loud in a library.

And Fram wasn't aware that RAN was restoring text from another editor when he brought this case here. Fram has been stalking RANs edits. He's prodded a disambiguation page in the last couple of weeks when he only found because RAN had created it. I'd urge the committee to direct Fram to stop following RAN's edits--if there is a problem, someone else will notice. Fram is following around someone who is effectively on probation just waiting for him to screw up and breathing down his neck. This isn't helpful and it boarders upon harassment. Long ago I asked Fram to stop following RAN around (years ago?). This isn't something anyone should have to put up with. Fram is by-and-large a reasonable person, but when it comes to RAN everything seems to get blown out of proportion. It's quite plain that he'd prefer RAN be banned. If someone followed all of your edits that closely, they'd find something problematic. And you'd get frustrated as heck.

I've tried to run a wikistalk tool to identify the interactions and I'm not being successful (things are very slow, perhaps because these editors both have a massive number of edits). Perhaps someone else can get it to work.

Sorry for the rant (did I mention I haven't slept much?), but this has been a problem years in the building and it needs to be addressed. Hobit (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This looks to me like a question for AE. That's either an infringement or not - and if it is, then a decision by AE can be made as to the response. However, if the question is if the wording "continued violations" implies that just one more violation would immediately result in an indefinite ban, then I'm not sure it does. I think the wording would allow consideration of each situation, such that a single gross violation may result in an indefinite ban, while a single example of borderline infraction may result in a stern warning and/or a brief block. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have always thought that admonishments cannot be directly enforced at AE, because, doing otherwise, would pretty much obliterate the difference between them and the other, more serious sanctions ArbCom may impose (such as topic bans, whose violations may lead to blocks). If the sanctioned editor perseveres in disrupting Wikipedia after (and in spite of) the warning, then it's possible to ask for an amendment of the case which may impose enforceable restrictions; until then, however, it's better to just ask for standard admin actions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of AE is "breach of the remedies", and this particular remedy is worded "...continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing." I think that if the wording had been left purely at an admonishment, then I'm not sure we would be discussing this - but that the admonishment carries a block warning for violation does seem to me to allow AE enforcement at the discretion of AE admins; though I take your point that admonishments should be differentiated from direct sanctions. If there is some doubt about if the block warning for violation is enforceable by AE, then perhaps we should be looking to clarify if - in general - admonishments which carry block warnings for violations do come under AE. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me, what matters is the expression "are likely to", which does not really authorises AE admins to impose blocks (otherwise, I believe, we'd have phrased it differently, using "may be blocked"), but rather makes it clear that our prediction is that, absent any changes on RAN's part, the most probable outcome will be a block. But that's just a particularly strongly-worded warning, in my opinion, and not a proper restriction... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the two above comments, particularly Salvio's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Richard Arthur Norton wants to seek a lifting or modification of the remedy against him, he should do it as a separate request, preferably after the first of the year. The request should provide evidence that the problems that led to the remedy's being imposed to begin with will not recur if it is lifted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per SilkTork and Salvio. If the original decision has made some misconduct unenforceable, an amendment of the original decision should be sought. AGK [•] 11:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that the admonishment was basically a warning that the community had lost its patience for the copyright violations and that if RAN carried on with them, the community may block him. I would certainly think hard about an amendment, such as the one AGK is suggesting, but as things stand I do not believe the admonishment is "enforceable". Having said that, I certainly have some sympathy for RAN in this situation, sourcing an edit which had been removed in part for being unsourced is certainly a trap I could have fallen into. If we go down the route of an amendment, I hope that it would not be too draconian. WormTT(talk) 11:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reviewed this, I think some form of amendment is needed here. What would also be useful is for examples like the one Fram pointed out to be discussed as a 'teachable moment'. Show (by editing the article) how you would correctly paraphrase the source without coming too close to (or copying) the original wording. Distinguish between facts contained in a source (as opposed to opinions) and the wording used to describe those facts. Demonstrate how you would find other sources to avoid the need to rely excessively on a single source. Acknowledge that it can be difficult to work with existing text in articles that may or may not be a copyright violation. Explain how unless you have access to all the sources, have read them all, and have carefully read through the whole article, it can be difficult to be sure that close paraphrasing and copyvios are not present in any article you may be editing. Point out that this is particularly a problem with unsourced text in articles. Fram could then encourage RAN and Commander edit and others to watch for this sort of thing and be more aware of it, both in their own editing and the editing of others. Finally, on a point of order, RAN, Fram is quite right to ask you to stop using the name Javert, that is a personal attack and needs to stop. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NE Ent, regarding this, I believe it is relatively common practice to quote (within reason) both the original text and the text being examined, when discussing alleged copyright violations. Quoting brief excerpts has always been allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to take your point further, I would suggest raising it on the relevant policy talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @NE Ent, regarding this, I presume you are referring to this ANI section? What happened there was that someone quoted an entire article from a newspaper (looking at the diff on 21:29, 27 December 2013 at BLPN that is around about 1000 words of quoted text and more importantly is the entire work - a weekly column on news events in a US state). That is clearly excessive quotation. What Fram quoted above may be short enough under the various exceptions. And although the policy may not make it clear, short and relevant quotations in project space, project discussion areas, and on article talk pages are allowed. Black Kite on his talk page in discussion with the editor discussed at ANI pointed to this section of Wikipedia:Quotations, which includes the following: "Unlike fair-use images, quotations are permitted on talk pages and project pages where they are useful for discussion, but the requirements listed above should still be observed." Having said that, what Fram quoted here was around 63 words of a 103-word article, that does feel like excessive quotation to me. Maybe you (NE Ent) could raise this on the relevant policy pages if you feel this needs clarification there, or you could discuss with others such as Black Kite? In any case, it would be better to continue such discussions away from this page, as this section needs to be refocused on responding to Fram's original request (which I've done below). Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alansohn, it is not always easy to add sources to support unsourced text. There are probably numerous instances where an editor added text based on source A, without citing the source, and another editor comes along and adds a reference claiming that the text is based on source B (similar to, but not identical to source A). Whether this is the right approach or not, depends on the exact circumstances. Many times it is better to remove unsourced text and start again from scratch. Carcharoth (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having taken a closer look, the source used here (someone posting on patch.com?) doesn't look like a reliable, relevant, or even useful source to me - standards should be higher for trivia like this, and the material in question arguably should be removed outright. If it is to remain, a much better source needs to be found. So the whole copyright/close paraphrasing discussion seems to have been a red herring. RAN, my view is that here you needed to be more careful when sourcing unsourced text - it is better to reduce unsourced text to the bare facts and source those, and in some cases to remove the unsourced text completely. Fram, my view is that here you needed to look at quality of sources, not just copyright issues. But overall, both these issues are content issues, so you both need to take such issues to the relevant discussion boards before coming here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=588589965"