Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
→Statement by {other user}: comment |
|||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of [[History of Argentina]] about events in or after December 1983 would not be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of [[History of Argentina]] about events in or after December 1983 would not be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by The ed17 === |
|||
This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban in gray areas: |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#MarshalN20]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20]] – "MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions" |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138#MarshalN20]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#MarshalN20]] |
|||
*[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarshalN20&oldid=580357389#November_2013 Unblock discussion] earlier this month – "Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, ... I am lifting the block". Is this "well clear"? |
|||
*[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=582406822#Request_Block_Review_of_User:MarshalN20 AN block review] that led to this. I'm going to quote {{u|Laser brain}}'s brilliant [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=582245412 comments] here as well, as they cut right to the heart of this situation: |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote|... I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing ''any article'' related to ''anything'' that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything.}} |
|||
:And as a side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {other user} === |
=== Statement by {other user} === |
Revision as of 23:32, 27 November 2013
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Aspersions cast by Thryduulf | 16 July 2024 | 0/7/1 |
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Clarification request: Argentine History | none | (orig. case) | 27 November 2013 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Historical elections | 19 July 2024 |
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
Clarification request: Argentine History
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Argentine History 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:
- MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cambalachero is aware of this request (or should soon be due to [1])
Statement by MarshalN20
There needs to be a clarification on the Latin American history topic ban. History is a very broad topic. A prior clarification request discussion showed there was plenty of troubles with the broadness of the ban and its inherent lack of precision. Please see ([2]), where Brad writes, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." The result here was that "recent history" was excluded from the topic ban.
The topic ban's lack of precision recently caused me to get into a minor block incident over a football article (see [3]). The first block incident was caused by inaccurate interpretation of the TBAN exception's "vandalism clause".
To summarize this request into questions:
- Was the topic ban on "Latin American history" one meant for diplomatic & military history (the classical definition of "history")?
- Can Cambalachero and I edit articles that only peripherally deal with history (i.e., culture articles such as sports, music, economics, society, food, modern politics, etc.)?
Additional relevant evidence (from my part):
- I wrote the FA article on Pisco Sour (Latin American culture) after the arbitration committee decision.
- I helped promote the GA article on Falkland Islands, after being allowed to do so by arbitration committee (see [4]). I'll add that the expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" shows how much faith the lot of you had in me. But, hey, it did turn out better than you expected; right?
- I've also extensively edited the article on the Peru national football team article (Latin American culture & sports article).
Statement by Thryduulf
The last clarification request resulted in a statement from the Committee that events in or after December 1983 are not "history" for the purposes of this topic ban. So the edit that led to the block [5] - reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 to an article that is primarily about sports - was not in any way I can conceive of covered by the topic ban.
Accordingly I would suggest that the topic ban be explicitly refined to:
- The geopolitical and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983.
- Other aspects of the history of Latin America that are directly related to geopolitical and/or military events that occurred before December 1983.
For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of History of Argentina about events in or after December 1983 would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by The ed17
This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban in gray areas:
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#MarshalN20
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20 – "MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions"
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138#MarshalN20
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#MarshalN20
- Unblock discussion earlier this month – "Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, ... I am lifting the block". Is this "well clear"?
- AN block review that led to this. I'm going to quote Laser brain's brilliant comments here as well, as they cut right to the heart of this situation:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote
- And as a side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).