Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Anachronist		16 June 2024	0/2/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

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[1], Future Perfect At Sunrise[2]Jmh649[3]Cirt[4]Edith Siruis Lee[5]

Statement:Littleolive oil

I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration ruling [6] that impacts a restriction placed on me.[7]

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. [8] I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. [9]He warned me citing WP:UNDUE [10] and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions[11]

• 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: [12]

The RfC was not closed, [13] 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. [14]. I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead. [15]

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: [16] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [17]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [18] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[19] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[20] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [21] 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:

A clarification would be useful for future situations helping to prevent any possible misunderstandings, and or mistakes. As well, I was restricted for 2 reverts of completely different content made over several days, I can¹t see that I violated Wikipedia policy /guidelnes, and neither in “spirit nor letter”, the arbitration, so would ask that consideration be given to overturning the 1RR restriction against me.

To the arbitration commitee re: Comments by Cirt:

Per the TM arbitration:"Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed...thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee". [22]

I hope the Arbitrators and or AE enforcers will respect my request to have this clarification dealt with here in this more neutral environment. That two appeals were posted around the same time is sheer coincidence. I can't imagine that meat puppets would be silly enough to post so close together inviting the usual and predictable narrative. The two issues at stake are the lack of evidence of wrongdoing, and the lack of following the procedure by the sanctioning admin as outlined by ArbCom. Those are the significant and only points here. Anything else deflects from the real issues.(olive (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

To Coren and clerks: I honestly asked for clarification which was questioned by editors who are not neutral to this situation, and by one who is not uninvolved. Those clarifications affect my restrictions. The restrictions and the clarification are interconnected in the most fundamental way. And respectfully, why is the arbitration being ignored. It says specifically that appeals may be made to the Arbitration Commitee. I did bold my statement rather than carry on a convoluted discussion on this page. How else to remind editors of what I had written? I hope the Arbitration Commitee will stand by their own Arbitration statements. If they don't what value do their statements have, and how can any editor get a fair hearing on Wikipedia. This is a serious issue (olive (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Note: I am one editor not three. I should be heard and dealt with as one editor. The Arbitration did not show meat puppetry or sock puppetry so please respect me and my concerns as one editor.(olive (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Comment to the Arbs and Kbob: Thanks to the Arbs, especially NYB for clarifying the text of the arbitration. The increased specificity of the TM Arbitration decisions over the more general discretionary sanctions can only make cases like this one easier to deal with. When the wording of a decision is specific, its easier to determine if the criteria has been met or it hasn't. The TM arbitration clearly defines what that criteria is. In highly contentious articles it should never be the case that one editor involved in a dispute on a contentious article is responsible for removing anyone else in that discussion. Asking an uninvolved experience/admin editor to make a judgement call is far more neutral and fair, and can be the first clearly defined step in assessing the situation. An editor who has been warned by a neutral editor who has no stake in the discussion, and then who continues with the same behaviour is less likely to end up here.

In my case, and I wanted to clarify that in terms of Kbob's post, that not only did I ask to have the arbitration clarified which it now has been, I asked that my situation be looked at in terms of a basic principle... Did the editor do anything wrong? In my case, two reverts, a week apart, on different content, in the months between the TM arbitration and the filed AE is not by any definition edit warring, especially that the mistaken enforcement appeal was compounded by false information concernong the RfC and consensus. Three editors were sanctioned based on this incorrect information, and none of those editors was warned by a neutral party. Those three editors were the same editors engaged in discussion on the TM research with Doc James the editor who posted the AE Enforcement, an editor who had reverted himself more than double what I did for example in the same time period. I don't see that there was any edit warring on the TM article, but if there was all parties should be restricted to 1RR. There is a very basic and fundamental issue here. Evidence presented by Doc James does not show wrong doing. If that "bottom line" isn't dealt with the door is open for messes of pretty big proportions as editors drag their adversaries to Notice Boards and to the Artb committee for manufactured or misunderstood wrongs.

The points are: first, was there wrong doing, and second were the steps outlined in the arbitration clearly followed so editors could deal or discuss even wrongly perceived mistakes. Why were there sanctions in the first place? On top of this a case was closed before editors could even lay out these points and were sanctioned point blank as if they had engaged in gross misconduct. (olive (talk) 19:45, 17 September 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)

Statement by Jmh649

User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Chronology of recent appeals

1. 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.
2. 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 [24] and [25]) 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

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
2. 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 [26], 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. [27][28][29] They should not be lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee

I want to comment about the suggestion that Olive and I should have worked together and agreed about the way to react to the AE (the location, etc.). As I said in my appeal, if I was mislead and broken a rule, then I apologize. However, common sense tells me that Olive should not be limited in her actions because of actions that I have taken. In the past, we have been in disagreements about procedures, etc. We do not think alike. She should have her way. I should have my way. I might contribute further to the discussion here, but for now this is all what I have to say. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Point added: Will Beback does not provide any evidence for the presupposition in his comment [30]. The presupposition is that the clarification [31] of a well informed, neutral and uninvolved administrator would add tricky clauses in the policy and that these clauses would be special variations for this case. The rest of his comment builds on this presupposition. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Away for two weeks

Starting from today, for the next two weeks I will be travelling with little access to the Internet. So, I will not contribute any more here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:26, 17 September 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)

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)
• 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)

---