Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 24 September 2012 (→‎Motion: Climate change (GregJackP): ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles none none 23 September 2012
Clarification request: Date delinking none none 23 June 2012
Amendment request: Climate Change Motion (orig. case) 14 September 2012
Amendment request: Sathya Sai Baba 2 Motion (orig. case) 24 August 2012

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
127128

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
127128

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Ankh.Morpork at 21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by AnkhMorpork

After a spate of edit-warring at Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) in which material was repeatedly added and removed on WP:OR grounds, Timotheus Canens unilaterally imposed these restrictions to address this.

  • The restrictions - They include: No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either no objection was made to adding or readding the content or an uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content."
  • Problem 1 - The restrictions have been applied to all editors adding any content. This will have the effect of precluding good-faith article expansion. Instead, the restrictions could have been targeted at adding material previously contested which would achieve the same result but would not have such wide-felt repercussions on acceptable contributions, now onerously circumscribed.
  • Problem 2 - The restrictions have been unequally applied and this will affect the balance of the article. Although stymieing any expansion of the article, no restraints have been placed on editors that wish to remove long-standing material from the article. Any editor can now remove all the material from the article, citing spurious policy grounds (so no vandalism defense), and nobody will be able to reinsert it.
  • Problem 3 - Imposing article restrictions is the purview of Arbcom. T Canens stated that he was imposing these "under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions".
These discretionary sanctions explicitly state: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area." T Canens has extended the ambit of user sanctions to include article restrictions. That the sanctions apply to user misconduct is readily apparent when reading Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions.
He referred to this request for clarification as a precedent. In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and Arbcom clarified that 1rr could be applied. In this case, all I-P related articles were already under 1rr restrictions, and the slanted, stringent restrictions imposed are wholly unprecedented.
Moreover, these restrictions were unilaterally imposed by T Canens without any previous admin discussion or consensus regarding them.
  • Conclusion - I request that these restrictions are tightened to remedy imbalances and allow for article expansion, and that T Canen's authority to make such restrictions is examined. Ankh.Morpork 21:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


@AGK - There is one more thing to consider. T Canens imposed these restrictions in response to this AN3 report detailing a 1rr violation. Can you comment whether you consider these restrictions an equitable remedy.
More importantly, would you consider either extending these restrictions to cover existing content or minimizing them to allow the addition of previously undisputed content?

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Can I suggest that since the Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) article is clearly in violation of at least the spirit of WP:ARBPIA rulings in that it is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes cobbled together to 'make Arabs look stupid', WP:IAR is invoked, the article is summarily deleted and salted, and the warring parties get back to arguing about something a little less infantile than this petty little propaganda piece... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fluffernutter

I'm not involved in I/P or AE in general, but I saw this go by earlier today and attempted to clarify this matter a bit to Ankh on T. Canens's talk. My explanation doesn't seem to have done the job. To my linked explanation, I'll just add that the description provided for Arbcom's standard discretionary sanctions appears to be deliberately broad, encompassing things like revert restrictions, topic bans, mandated external review (which is very similar to what T.C. has imposed wrt Ankh's "Problem 1"), as well as "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". We're not intended to be bound strictly by exactly what words are used in the DS decription, because the DS description provides the, er, discretionary area of "any other measures." This means that opposing these sanctions on the basis of "restrictions can only be on people, not articles" is missing the point. Admin judgment is deferred to, within reasonable limits, in placing these measures, and there's nothing in what T. Canens has done here that looks particularly unacceptable (though I will admit to having had to read the restrictions twice to parse exactly who was being restricted from what). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Honestly, I think the restriction is a bit too restrictive under the circumstances. The problem was with material being added that did not make any claim of the accusations being conspiracy theories. I think the requirement for discussion of any addition is restricting all editors and all content work for something that is a little more focused. At issue is specifically whether the additions involved conspiracy theories as no reliable sources provided used that description in any sense. Should reliable sources clearly cover a relevant incident as a conspiracy theory then I fail to see why discussion would be necessary on whether to include it in the article. If the material undeniably fits then requiring discussion is little more than bureaucratic regulation for its own sake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article for deletion as I feel Tim's concerns point to this being about the overall content of the article and incredibly restrictive sanctions are not the best way to resolve that problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Activism1234

IP 24.177.121.137 commented below that he/she disagrees, which is fine. But the IP is also encouraging people to ignore all rules and simply ignore the restrictions T. Canens has imposed, because they feel it fits ignore all rules. I don't think this is acceptable behavior, and find this problematic. --Activism1234 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ Andy the Grump The article was previously nominated for deletion, and passed with flying colors, along with many admins agreeing it should be kept. It is false to assume that the point is to "make Arabs look stupid." I don't think either of us are mind-readers, and it wouldn't be right to characterize some of the neutral admins and editors on that AfD as voting for an article to "make Arabs look stupid." The article already survived an AfD - consensus has been established that it should be kept, and the article shouldn't simply be deleted. --Activism1234 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ The Devil's Advocate One of the sources described it as a myth. Is the exact wording "conspiracy theory" needed in the reference? --Activism1234 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

Fluffernutter's comment on my talk page captured my thoughts quite well - in fact, probably better than I could say. I just want to add a few points:

  • The ease to remove existing material is by design; given the longstanding partisan battles on this article I have very little confidence in the quality of any content in that page. If someone misuses this ability, an editor-based restriction may well be appropriate.
  • I actually noticed this issue via an ANI thread. In particular, JN466's comment is what really got my attention, and I set out to create a set of restrictions that, in my view, would address the problem. After I finished imposing and logging the restrictions, I looked at the AN3 thread and determined that, given the lack of an edit notice and the nature of the edits at issue, as well as the restrictions I just imposed, it was not advisable to take further action on the AN3 thread.
  • As to article-based restrictions, they have been employed in a number of WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBEE cases. T. Canens (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

I think the restriction imposed is too broad and unfair. I also don't think that the discretionary sanctions provision of WP:ARBPIA authorize it. The language at WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions authorizes imposition of sanctions by uninvolved admins against users after an initial warning. There was no warning, the restrictions don't apply to "users" but to everyone, and the administrator imposing sanctions wasn't sufficiently uninvolved. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

A quick look at the article's editing history is all that's needed to see what's going on here. Basically, two editors have been trying to use that article as a coatrack to hang out as many looney, animal-related incidents as possible. I think T. Canens could just as easily have topic-banned the two editors primarily responsible instead of giving them playground rules. At least, he is giving the topic some adult supervision, which was obviously necessary. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Well, the labeled "problem 3" is not a problem at all. Admins have always and authority to issue special rules in discretionary sanctions to make articles work, a long-standing precedent has been imposing 1RR under their authority. The restrictions imposed here look reasonable to me, and we aren't going to direct an article deletion. Courcelles 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restrictions T. Canens applied are complex but sound. In response to the complainant's three arguments: 1) suggested edits simply now require additional scrutiny; they are not discouraged nor prevented. 2) If the new restrictions are inadequate, I suggest you ask an enforcing administrator to extend them. I agree that existing content is not restricted, but I can't say whether that was an obvious omission or by design. 3) Plainly, these restrictions are authorised by standard discretionary sanctions (they regulate user conduct, not article content), and T. Canens acted sensibly and within the limits of the remedy. If there is nothing else to consider, I would dismiss this complaint. AGK [•] 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting more statements. I'm sure there are plenty of other observers who can comment on how things have been applied in this case, vs. other discretionary sanction areas. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issues with T. Canens' actions here, which are well within the range of discretionary sanctions. The objective is to stop the disruption, and this seems to have a reasonable chance of doing so. Risker (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per all of the above; I see no particular issue with the remedies as issued. If there is concern that these restrictions could be wikilawyered into introducing bias into the article, that should be raised at AE, with evidence to support the concerns if possible. I see no need for the Committee to intervene at this time. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Date delinking

Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarily re-opened by the Arbitration Committee per this. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Gimmetoo

As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [2] [3] [4] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [5], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [6] [7] [8]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

  • Given the trouble that ISO access dates have been causing, I am prepared to start a new regime of editing in relation to dates – one that is more conservative so as to avoid complaints. I would undertake not to touch them from now on, either manually or by script, until a new consensus is reached on them. As part of the problem was due to uncorrected script bugs, I also pledge to exercise greater diligence to scrutinise test and modify the MOSNUM scripts, and to rectify any reported errors as soon as possible.

    I believe it's not worth arguing this one out, and hope that the community resolves the matters in its own time. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because of family matters, I decided to resign on 12 July; shocked and demoralised by the FLG2 case, I had decided that the Ohconfucius account was too tainted if ever I made a comeback. So yes, it was a conscious decision to use another account I had created. I made 67 edits using the account since my reurn, quite a few of which were substantive content edits; I did indeed also make some date-related edits, and I regret the impression created that I was trying to avoid detection. I would reiterate the object for me was to avoid using the Ohconfucius account if at all possible.

    The Smalleditor account was and always has been a declared alternative account. And upon returning, I started using it exclusively. But I decided that I would not want the complexities of the scripts' migration affecting many files and many users. For personal reasons, my level of activity is and shall remain very much less than the volume of contribution I made in the past. My current activity, as Ohconfucius, is to improve the functionality of the scripts under my control; the mainspace edits, whilst affecting dates, actually span the entire MOS. Edits have been limited in number – I save but a small fraction of those I actually test on, as a record of the scripts' progress. I took the unblock to mean that my the undertaking in my email to Arbcom has been acceptable. As noted in my email(s) to arbcom, I now no longer change accessdates – the dates script has been modified to that effect. I have not made any substantive edits in mainspace since. I am open to suggestions from Arbcom as to how I might re-establish trust in my good behaviour going forwards. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JimWae

I bring to attention again that the script OhC has constructed (& that is used by numerous others) has a function to change any and ALL dates to MDY or DMY, but has no function to change any dates at all (specifically neither accessdates nor archivedates) to YMD. As more people use this tool, inevitably there can only be further violations of WP:DATERET for accessdates and archivedates as people use the tool without first fully examining WP guidelines that allow YMD for those dates. I submit that either 1> changing accessdates & archivedates to YMD be added to the script, OR 2> changes to any accessdates and archivedates be entirely removed from the script, OR 3> the script be retired. --JimWae (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not finding the answer particularly plausible, OhConfucius. You don't explain why you undertook to continue editing date-related material, and frankly, your return to editing under an alternate account, to conduct date-related edits when I'd clearly told you twice that you needed to answer this charge of misconduct before doing so, is more concerning than any script error. Throughout this entire return, you claimed to be retired, only amending that in the last day or two. You spun a compelling tale in email when this issue was first raised, explaining why you would be less active, and you then reiterated your desire to leave the community entirely after the Falun Gong 2 finding against you. Yet, a few weeks later you're back, editing dates surreptitiously. Why should the community believe you when you say you won't cause any more problems, given your rather poor track record of congruence between your recent actions and recent statements? Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him?  Roger Davies talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarily re-opened per this statement by the committee. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Climate Change

Initiated by GregJackP Boomer! at 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 17
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • Not applicable
Information about amendment request
  • Details of desired modification: Topic-ban lifted

Statement by GregJackP

I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at WP:ARBCC, and to request the restrictions I was placed under on my unblock be lifted (CC & new age religious movements). In the time since I have been back, I have been a productive editor, taking a WP:SCOTUS article to FA status and generally editing in the SCOTUS/Law/Native American areas. I have worked in Articles for Creation, attempting to help new and IP editors get their ideas to article status and into the mainspace. I also do patrol work as far as Prods, BLPProds, CSD & AfD noms. I have received the WP:FOUR award and an Article Rescue barnstar since returning from my block.

I have no intent to go back into either area, but I sometimes catch myself looking at an article at AfD/AfC that could (widely construed) be in either of the areas of the ban. I would rather not have to worry about inadvertently or mistakenly crossing the line.

I know that in the CC area, that the findings were correct and the topic ban was needed. I have learned from that experience and I no longer take a battlefield approach to the issues. I've found that most issues can be worked out with talk and restraint, or, if need be, by simply walking away. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NW. I don't have a problem with the block, per se. It demonstrated the battleground mentality that I had at the time and was appropriate. I believed at the time, and still believe, that you only blocked or took action against one side of the issue, at least during that time period. I also realize that some of that could be lingering bitterness about your role in what happened to me in the incident with you and ScienceApologist. That is one of the reasons that I have tried to avoid you since my return. It is also why I do not intend to return to the Climate Change area. GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


@AGK. Thank you, I certainly appreciate it. Would that also include the restriction on New Age Religious Movements? A part of the condition of my unblock was to stay away from it also. I do not intend to edit there, but would like to be free of that restriction for the same reason as CC. GregJackP Boomer! 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NW. Thank you. I do want to reassure you (and anyone else) that I do not intend to do anything in CC. What caused this appeal were two articles I looked at. One was an article that was pretty much crap - unsourced, no hits on anything, etc. that had been CSD'd but declined. I was about to AfD it when I noticed that it tangentially might be connected with global warming. I backed off of it. The other was an AfC I was looking at that was a BLP where the individual was a member of the LDS church. I did nothing there either. I just don't want to get blocked again if for some reason I miss the connection in my normal work. The most likely conflict would be in Native America SCOTUS area, since both the CC/religious areas could touch it there. GregJackP Boomer! 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ST. I certainly understand your concern, however be assured that I am not going to go further with this, and made sure that I was well within 3RR. If you'll note, I started an RfC on the talkpage for the issues, and intend to abide by the consensus. I would be pleased if you would watch how this plays out, rather than assuming that I intend to edit-war on this issue. I would prefer to walk away before that occurs. GregJackP Boomer! 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if you would prefer to put this on hold to see how it plays out, I would be happy with that. GregJackP Boomer! 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SBHB. I have to disagree with you on the sources. The first source listed, (Bennett, "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?") was cited to support two statements. First, the arrest and imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan, and second, that only the intervention of the British government prevented harsher punishment. The text of the article stated: "only to find herself behind bars for defaming the Prophet Muhammad" (which supports the first statement), and "It was only after the British government intervened that Gibbons was freed and deported from Sudan" (which supports the second statement). These lines are at p.81, para. 1 of the cited source. In addition, the cited article repeatedly discusses the us of the UN Defamation of Religions resolution to support censorship. I don't have the time to address this or to answer the second source immediately (RL commitment), but will be happy to do so later today. GregJackP Boomer! 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this since I posted earlier. This is not the time or place to delve into a content issue, unless requested by the committee members. I disagree with your interpretation of the sources, and have shown how one of the sources directly supported the material it was cited to support. If you still disagree, I would invite you to join the RfC, the AfD, or another appropriate forum for discussing the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo098. I am open to suggestions on how to handle the matter. After going through the BRD and getting into the discussion phase with the RFC, I was working at compromising on the language. It's not exactly what I would prefer, but it was moving forward. I would also request that you look at the editor that repeatedly removes material while the discussion is going on, and that has thus far not offered any suggestions other than to delete the entire article. If they continue to remove material, it will continue to the point that there is a) no material to discuss, and b) a deleted article. I don't think that is the way to go about this, and I've repeated asked them to stop and discuss it - they won't. I was under the impression that requesting page protection was within policy, and was better than edit warring. GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo98. I responded to that allegation at the location it was made, here. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I would be interested to hear GregJackP's opinion on the situation where I article-banned him for disruptive editing (described best here) with the benefit of two years' hindsight. NW (Talk) 05:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I have liked your SCOTUS-related work and hope you continue with it. As it's looking likely that the ban will be lifted (which I do not oppose), my unsolicited advice would be for you to just stick with a few articles or AFDs here and there, not dive back in to the topic area (which seems to be your intent). But take that with as much salt as you wish. Best of luck, NW (Talk) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Ultimately the internal squabbles over conduct that absorb so much time in Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures matter little to our readers. What matters most to them is how accurately we convey information. In this regard the most serious concern over GregJackP's involvement in the ARBCC mess was persistent misrepresentation of source material. Some very recent diffs are concerning on this point.[9][10][11][12] (I have checked the sources and one of them definitely does not support the charge of "censorship" while the other is more borderline.) As far as I can tell there is no problem at all with his work on court-related articles which by all accounts has been quite good. The problems arise when he ventures into topics related to certain political perspectives, such as climate change or Islam. It would be helpful if GregJackP were to make a strong and enforceable commitment to hold himself to high standards with regard to sourcing, even (or especially) on topics where he has strong personal opinions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris. GregJackP's behavior at Talk:Censorship_in_Islamic_societies#Removing_more_irrelevant_material shows some battleground mentality and an attempt to win a dispute by admin/procedural means. Although he did not revert much by himself, he jumped into yet another team effort (at edit warring), which is too often seen on Wikipedia on contentious issues. Almost all the arguments on the talk page are procedural (who reverted first and who has dibs to the "B" in BRD and so forth), so it's little more than edit warring by words. Additionally, GregJackP's inability to understand slightly technical sources coupled with his willingness to express an opinion anyway can be seen in action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worley noise. But we need to retain editors, I hear. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply: protection, yes. Asking an admin to protect your favorite version, no. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are #2 in recent reverts on that article [13] [14][15] (top place goes to Roscelese, no doubt). By the way, it's fun to see another one of those articles. It keeps the place lively and fun. And how much progress has been made. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A related incident was reported to ANI [16]. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like GregJackP has been misrepresenting sources again: [17]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: Climate change (GregJackP)

1) The restriction imposed on GregJackP (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

For this motion there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support
  1. This doesn't seem controversial and in any case discretionary sanctions remain in force,  Roger Davies talk 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can support this based upon GregJackP's statement that he is making this request so he doesn't worry about having to police the outer limits of the areas from which he was topic-banned, as opposed to wading back into the maelstrom(s), coupled with his good work in other areas since the Climate change decision. GregJackP, like all editors, must also continue to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PhilKnight (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Incredibly weakly. I don't really see lifting both of these at once, and would prefer we had just lifted one, and come back to the other in a few months. Courcelles 20:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • On noting the comments above and reviewing the case I was inclined toward supporting this motion - though when I went to check recent contributions I noted just today the start of an edit war - [18]. I would rather wait to hear more statements. We have perhaps gone to motion rather quickly here based on few supporting statements (none?). SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is a good idea. And, while the community haven't come forward to support this request, they haven't come forward to oppose either, so that is also good. I'd like to just wait another 24 hours to see if any other comments are made, and in the meantime I'll have a quick glance at contributions history. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holding off for a while before voting. Also somewhat more inclined to lift the CC ban than the NRM one at the moment. Courcelles 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Sathya Sai Baba 2

Initiated by Andries Andries. (I had filed this request earlier in July but it was removed with my consent because I could not find time to provide diffs. Reformatted on 24 August with two sentences in italics added.) Andries (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Andries (talk) at 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Case affected
Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Conflict_of_interest
  2. Principle 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#NPOV_and_sources
  3. Finding 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Sathya_Sai_Baba_is_weakly_sourced
  4. Finding 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Editing_by_Andries
  5. Finding 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_runs_an_attack_web_site
  6. Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
  7. Remedy 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Open_remedy
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • not necessary
Information about amendment request

Statement user:Andries

I request to re-edit Sathya Sai Baba movement. I lost the rights to edit the article in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba nr 1. I think it is a waste for Wikipedia and of other people's time and money when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike Sathya Sai Baba. But after I stopped editing the Sathya Sai Central Trust, an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per week. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or extensive, repeated dispute resolution, because I do not have time. One of the reasons why I request to re-edit is that nobody seriously tried to improve the article after I was forced to stop editing. I also compiled excerpts from sources and nobody every used them. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources.

To summarize, the reason why I was topic banned for the set of Sathya Sai Baba related article were.

1. perceived inappropriate linking in the article Robert Priddy. The dispute was about linking to one of the home pages of the subject.
2. alleged conflict of interest. I personally think that there was never a conflict of interest in the strict sense of the word, but I admit that I was, as a critical former member of the movement, emotionally involved. This has waned in the course of years. The fraction of my edits related to Sathya Sai Baba has become much smaller as my edit history shows. I did not receive an e-mail or phone call for years via the exbaba website. I was never involved in updating or maintaining this website.
3. very frequent use of the conflict resolution procedures without coming any closer to agreements.
The arbcom considered my edits to the article Sathya Sai Baba as responsible. The arbcom did not scrutinize my edits at Sathya Sai Baba movement, because, as stated, the article was never controversial.

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement suffers from neglect. Look for example, at the following sentence without good reputable source that was inserted there on 11 May 2011] and remains there until now.

"When he died at the age of 84, it was revealed that he meant 96 lunar years, in keeping with the Hindu calendar."

The article Sathya Sai Baba will always remain problematic due to the lack of reputable sources for a good biography. This lack of reputable sources is explicitly described in reputable sources e.g. by anthropologist Lawrence Babb.

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba, maximum one year back from 17 Aug. 2012

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba movement, maximum one year back from 17 Aug.2012

List of books or article copies that I have on the shelf and intend to use as sources. See here for a discussion of some of these sources Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

  • Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play", in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
  • Babb, Lawrence, A., Redemptive Encounters, (University of California Press, 1986)
  • Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press.
  • Kent, Alexandra Divinity and Diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen Nias Press, first published in 2005, ISBN 87-91114-40-3
  • Knott, Kim Dr. South Asian Religions in Britain in the Handbook of Living Religions edited by John R. Hinnels (1997), second edition, ISBN 0-14-051480-5
  • Kelly, John D. Dr. Bhakti and Postcolonial Politics: Hindu Missions to Fiji in Nation and Migration in The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora
  • Poggendorf-Kakar, Katharina German language Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi. Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger. de:Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-8300-0060-X

Thanks for your time. Andries (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Addition. I have to agree with what Tijfo098 wrote here, I find it very unfortunate that users, like user:Radiantenergy are banned with the stated reasons that they are meatpuppets and sockpuppets. The evidence is at best doubtful and in my opinion very unconvincing and very insufficient. The user has good reason to see this decision as unfair. Banning users for disruption instead of sockpuppetry would be better. Andries (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. JN466 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. --JN466 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

Given the inability of Wikipedia to actually contain the edits of self-declared returning editors such as [19], it's probably better to allow everyone to edit it. (Also the number of registered SPAs with obvious prior knowledge of wiki syntax editing there is not surprising; those are easy to find too.) The article should put under discretionary sanctions instead, so that any new flaring of edit warring can be easily dealt with, instead of vainly hoping that every nick banned in the ancient ArbCom case is going to do what Andries did, i.e. asking permission before returning to editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Exchanges such as this one and this one indicate to me that discretionary sanctions are quite necessary in this topic area. Also, the remedy against Andries (mainly for COI and linking to Priddy's site as I read it) is rather hollow when two other more prominent critics (and former devotees) of SSB, one of whom was Priddy himself, continued to edit the SSB articles directly; see those two thread links. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me make a couple of things clearer:

  • Having come back to editing after a fairly long hiatus, I can't shake the impression that a lot of Wikipedia has become abandonware now. Perhaps new editors focus on writing their own new articles, because existing ones remain outdated for years. The SSB-related ones surely look that way, ignoring at least two volumes of academic research published in the last four years: ISBN 978-9004165434 and ISBN 978-0231149334, the latter one having received many positive reviews.
  • As for the proliferation of discretionary sanction areas, ask yourselves: what is easier for admins (besides not allowing anyone to edit the article)? Having to prove based on behavior alone that some new account is a reincarnation of a banned editor (as in the case of Wikisunn / Radiantenergy) or acting on disruptive editing by itself? (I can give you some easy peasy examples from Radiantenergy's editing if you insist, e.g. the wildly incorrect claims he kept repeating about a BBC documentary.)

Best of luck, Tijfo098 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork. Alternatively, you could semi-protect the main articles and thus force the combatants to use accounts again. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

@Silktork: The list of topics that under discretionary sanctions is getting too large, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend that if you are not comfortable letting the appellant back unconditionally, perhaps you could lift the topic ban and add a editor probation that expires in 1 year if not invoked? NW (Talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to motion one, may I suggest the following rewrite or some variant thereof: "Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Andries (talk · contribs) may be banned from the topic or subportions of it by any uninvolved administrator. This sanction is to expire after three months unless invoked before then, in which case it shall become indefinite." NW (Talk) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (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.}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Will somebody move to vacate R1.1 of Sathya Sai Baba 2? AGK [•] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. Risker (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. Courcelles 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's worth considering lifting the user topic ban, and putting discretionary sanctions on the topic itself. This would allow work to be done by someone interested in the topic and apparently with access to sources, while protecting the article against potential instability which may arise from his involvement. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the discussion, some moderation or removal of the existing topic ban seems to have a tentative consensus here--what is lacking is any agreement on the specific nature of such a modification. Lifting the topic ban is simplest, discretionary sanctions are easy procedurally but NW's point on their expansion is well taken. I will likely support whichever modification a colleague is willing to put forward as a motion. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be willing to support a modification here. Perhaps we should consider suspending the topic-ban for three months, with the option of then lifting it completely if there are no serious problems during that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see by looking at the original item that he was allowed talkpage access in 2008, which appears to have passed smoothly. Very well then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motions: Sathya Sai Baba 2 (Andries)

For these motions there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion vacating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Andries banned

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. In its place Andries (talk · contribs) is placed on probation for three months with a view to lifting restrictions entirely past that date.

Support
  1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I note that we do not have a standard "probation" provision to describe how this might actually be enforced in practice. Kirill [talk] 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, but I will propose an edited version to make the intent clearer, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Note that Wikipedia:Probation actually is well-defined, but we haven't used it in a remedy for some time and obviously, very few people remember that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I support the idea, but I can't support anything this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. Courcelles 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. AGK [•] 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Motion to vacate topic ban and impose discretionary sanctions

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Standard discretionary sanctions are hereby authorised for the Sathya Sai Baba movement topic area, broadly construed.

Support
  1. More I think about it, this is the only way I can support moving forward here. We have no usable definition for probation, and the topic area is not exactly orderly. (I note that if this were a more recent case, this would almost surely be the status quo already) Courcelles 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can live with this too, but are we simply going to end up putting discretionary sanctions on everything, eventually? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fair enough. Kirill [talk] 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a system of last resort to an article that has been off our radar for years. AGK [•] 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per AGK. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Also per AGK. Risker (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Motion to suspend topic-ban

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

Support
  1. I think this is what the first motion above was driving at, but eliminates any confusion over procedure and terminology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm quite keen that we don't so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) AGK [•] 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine. Risker (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Willing to support this alternative, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. OK. Willing to give this a go. Only one article has recently experienced edit warring - Sathya Sai Baba movement - and that was by IP accounts, so I have semi-protected it for three months. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has recent history of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Tijfo098. Yes, I have been considering semi-protection, and that may well be enough. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=514398847"