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 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 29 September 2012 (→‎Clerk notes). 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: ARBFLG2 none none 26 September 2012
Clarification request: Date delinking none none 23 June 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: ARBFLG2

Initiated by Homunculus (duihua) at 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Homunculus

I was subject to a terminal topic ban on content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed, per ARBFLG2. I'd like to ask a couple questions concerning the scope of the topic ban, and ask for advice on how to handle a couple situations that have arisen over the last couple months.

  1. I'm working on taking a the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei through a GA review after its lead author went MIA. The reviewer proposed a structural reorganization and consolidation of some sections on the article. One of these sections has a couple sentences that could very broadly be construed as related to Falun Gong. Specifically, it notes coverage that the event received in the Epoch Times newspaper, which was established by practitioners of Falun Gong. I have no intention of touching that content, but just to err on the side of caution, I wanted to ask whether it would be alright for me to pare down some of the other content contained in that section (it's a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM right now). Alternately, could I ask another editor to take a look at it?
  2. I recently revisited an article I wrote related to Falun Gong, and noticed I had made a small but non-trivial error concerning the title of a Chinese government official. What should I do in cases like this? Can I contact another editor, alert them to the error, and let them decide how and whether to correct it?
  3. On a similar note, I created an article on the Shifang protest a couple months ago. After I started work on the article, I found news coverage that noted an interesting (if very tenuous) link between this event and Falun Gong. It's probably notable enough to be mentioned in one sentence. Could I send another editor a link to the relevant news coverage, and leave it to them to decide whether the information is worth including on the page?

My understanding of the policy on WP:PROXYING is that the above two examples would be permissible, as long as the editors making changes are using independent judgement. Is that right? Assuming it is, I'm also wondering if there are any recommendations on who I should contact in cases like this to mitigate against any appearance of impropriety. Would it be preferable to ask editors who have minimal involvement in the FLG topic area, or neutral admins, as opposed to editors I've worked with on FLG before? And should those correspondences take place on-wiki or by email? Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold, that all makes good sense. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Homunculus originally posted the first question to my talk page; I replied here but to reiterate, in general (note that underlined bits have since been added):
    • An edit re-ordering text without removing or deleting anything would probably fall under "uncontroversial corrections to [...] style" and thus acceptable to edit without following the restrictions outlined by WP:MER unless:
      • An editor has previously expressed opposition to the change or a similar one, or
      • The re-ordering may impact how the presented information is perceived by the reader (for example, mentioning a negative review before a positive one when it was previously the other way around)
    • Whenever any editor subject to restrictions is unsure if an edit falls within said restrictions, the editor should err on the side of caution and assume it does unless explicitly told otherwise by community consensus or the restricting authority (being the admin who levied the sanction or, as in this case, the Committee)
Although in hindsight I'd forgotten about the topic ban, so yes, you shouldn't be editing anything in the subject area yourself until the topic ban expires, regardless of triviality. I've added the underlined bit to clarify. To answer your specific questions, though...
  1. I would consider anything noting coverage in the Epoch Times to fall under your topic ban. As long as you avoid that particular section, however, I would think it's fine for you to do whatever; it doesn't appear as though the vast majority of the article would fall under that umbrella. In this particular case, since the reviewer has left specific comments to be followed, asking another editor to handle that particular change would be fine and perhaps preferable just to avoid even the slightest hint of impropriety. Here, you haven't requested the changes directly, so I don't believe that WP:PROXYING would really be an issue.
  2. Technically your topic ban forbids all discussion across all namespaces, but if there is indeed a simple error I see little value in allowing incorrect information to remain simply on a matter of bureaucracy. I would say yes, that would be fine in this limited circumstance, provided that your request is worded in such a way that it allows the editor to make their own judgment as to whether the edit is appropriate (per WP:PROXYING, they must take responsibility for the change), and that if they opt to discuss it with others you would not be able to participate in the discussion, and not continue to ask people if they determine the change should not be made.
  3. This one I can't see any justification for; there's no incorrect information presently in the article, and presumably another editor could find the same news coverage and mention it themselves without your intervention.
To answer your closing questions, the best place to leave these requests would probably be on a relevant (non-Falun Gong-related) Wikiproject's talk page. This way anyone can pick it up, and it provides a starting point for discussion if needed. Wherever it is, definitely on-wiki; keep things in the open, where they can be easily seen by all editors, so if there are any issues, they can be easily addressed. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the cautious approach outlined by Hersfold. That said, Mandated External Review is a new process, and some fine tuning may be appropriate. Looking at the WP:MER page, there is already an exception for 'minor, uncontroversial corrections to spelling, grammar, and/or style' and it's possible this clause could be expanded slightly to allow fixing one own's edits, for example. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 29 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]

Statement by BlueMoonset

Given that Ohconfucius stated on 20 September that accessdate edits had stopped, I was surprised to see that his tool had been used to make edit changes that included accessdate modifications to Vitamin D (Glee) early on 27 September [9]. This turns out to be one of hundreds of edits over the past few days, the summary of each being "style fixes (text)". Selecting the subsequent Walter Cronkite and Wadsworth High School edits, both included accessdate edits. Looking back, accessdate edits appear to have started on 24 September with Undershaw: [10].

My experience is that there have been testing problems with Ohconfucius in the past few months: as noted in User talk:Ohconfucius/archive23#More editing problems, despite being informed that valid accessdate fields were being removed, edits continued without fixing, and more dates disappeared. At least one of the edits noted there and in Gimmetoo's initial statement above, [11], has never been fixed.

The first responsibility of someone running a tool should be to fix any known damage immediately, the second priority should be to look for more bad edits and fix them, and a distant third should be to debug the tool and resume testing. I don't see this in the actions of Ohconfucius. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 27 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]
  • I agree with Risker's comments, firstly no sanctions are currently active, and secondly, a return to the same conduct which led to the imposition of sanctions could result in the sanctions being reinstated. PhilKnight (talk) 20:36, 29 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 [12], 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]
  9. Far from optimal, so only if nothing else passes. Courcelles 18:45, 26 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=515208772"