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 EauOo (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 8 October 2012 (→‎Clarification request: Senkaku Islands: Take me to your trench, trench, trench.). 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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Senkaku Islands|Clarification request: Senkaku Islands]] none none 5 October 2012
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related)|Clarification request: Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related)]] none none 3 October 2012
Clarification request: Date delinking none none 23 June 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
127

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
127

Clarification request: Senkaku Islands

Initiated by Lothar von Richthofen (talk) at 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Lothar von Richthofen

I am an uninvolved third party in this dispute; the issue came to my attention in this AN/I thread (further background may be found there). At the locus of the dispute is the status of Ryukyu Islands of Japan with regard to the Senkaku dispute. Under the WP:DISCSANC remedies for the Senkaku case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for the articles pertaining to the Senkaku Islands dispute, broadly construed, per remedy 7. Articles relating to other disputed islands in the region may also be subject to discretionary sanctions, but only for a fixed time period after a convoluted vetting process per remedy 8. The question is: can the Ryukyus reasonably be considered to fall under automatic DISCSANC per remedy 7, or are they sufficiently removed to be considered to fall under remedy 8?

From the Japanese standpoint, the Senkakus are part of the Ryukyus, but the Ryukyus are not part of the Senkakus (kind of like squares and rectangles). This would suggest that remedy 7 holds true here. From the standard Chinese standpoint, the two are distinct geographical entities. This would suggest remedy 8 might be the case. However, there is a camp within the Chinese faction which extends the Diaoyu claim to other parts of Okinawa Prefecture, including the Ryukyus [4]. This would suggest remedy 7.

So would Chinese-Japanese disruption on Ryukyu Islands-related pages—but not necessarily Senkaku pages strictu senso—qualify as still falling within the scope of the Senkaku Islands dispute? I'm inclined to believe that they do, but there is sufficient greyness here to give me pause.

More generally, I believe that the scope and mechanism of remedy 8 merit clarification. What does "if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names" mean? Does "editing community" refer only to the "local" editors, or to the "community" at large? If the latter, is an RfC or similar process necessary to determine lack of consensus? Is this applicable only to disputes where two significant factions create gridlock on naming, or may tendentious lone-wolf disruptors also create cause for sanctions? What about cases not strictly related to naming, but to other aspects of national pride/control? How formal is this "one month period" following the warning supposed to be?

I believe that the remedies of this case are not worded well enough to know where and how they are applicable, and this merits clarification. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryulong: Given that the Ryukyus are peripheral at least to the general tension between Japan and the two governments claiming sovereignty over China and how MA's POV falls within the scope of this conflict, I felt that this case needed some clarification. Broadly contstrued, I think the DISCSANC may be applicable, I just am not sure how "broadly construed" it is. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MA: I'm not an arbitrator, bud. And I can't change the title to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ryukyu Arc because there is no such case. I'm of the mind, however, that the Ryukyu Arc falls within the scope of the Senkaku case. I'm just asking the arbitrators to clarify their decision. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: But given the nature of MA's behaviour here, I'm not sure your Troubles analogy works that well. This would be more akin to radical Nationalist pushing the POV that the Isle of Man and the Hebrides are part of Ireland, not just unrelated disruption on Isles pages (even that's not a great analogy). As noted above, there is a fringe camp on the Chinese side of the Senkaku dispute which extends the "Diaoyu" claim to the entire Ryukyu chain (source). Based on this, I think that the Ryukyus could fall at the periphery of the Senkaku dispute and so fall under WP:SENKAKU #7. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@NYB: Which remedy are you referring to? Clearly it falls within the whole "disputed Asian islands" category (remedy 8), but does it fall within the Senkaku dispute (remedy 7)? Given the close relatedness of the islands and the fact that the Chinese claim to the Senkakus is sometimes extended to all of the Ryukyus (as in this particular incident), I personally think it does. I'd also like some clarification as to the convoluted mechanism of remedy 8, as explained in my initial statement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

Masanori Asami (talk · contribs) was simply disrupting the article Ryukyu Islands from some as of yet unclear (but as far as I can tell Taiwanese nationalist) point of view and I requested intervention, particularly because of content forking and now repeated claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia or that I have some sort of alterior motive. Asami is not here to edit constructively, and I saw ANI as the venue to have him removed posthaste. I honestly don't think that the Senkaku ARB case really carries here but seeing as Asami claims that the Senkakus are the Diaoyus and belong to Taiwan there might be some merit here.

Oh, and all of this was nice, too.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A third posting of his claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia, because I have some alterior motive.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand. And Lothar, I guess you are right that it is worth looking into, particularly because Asami believes that the Senkaku Islands are not part of the Ryukyu Islands and should be called the Diaoyu Islands. However, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind his disruption to remove any and all mentions of the northern island chains from the page as well as constantly insisting that the Japanese definition of the islands be used rather than the ones both the US, UK, PRC, and ROC use that are pretty much independent but all identical.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masanori Asami's comments below further illustrate that he is not competent enough to edit the English Wikipedia. He persists in attacking myself and Lothar, believes that the "Senkaku" moniker should be changed just for this dispute, and continues to bring up the content dispute despite this not being the proper venue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masanori Asami

This statement has been deleted[5]. AGK [•] 21:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EauOo

The Ryukyu arc is a subduction zone. It is well-decribed and defined by tectonic and seismic studies of the Phillipines plate subducting eastward under the Eurasian plate and by associated geophysical studies of gravity anomalies, the adjacent trenches, and the subduction zone to the east. I can't imagine what there is to arbitrate, the Boso Triple Junction? There are some interesting complications and questions, but it seems unlikely that a redefinition will occur in cyberspace outside of some new scientific knowledge. Eau(W)oo (talk) 00:16, 8 October 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

  • As there is confusion regarding the matter, a clarification seems appropriate. It appears that the Senkaku Islands are part of the Sakishima Islands which in turn are part of the Ryukyu Islands, so while related there is a degree of separation akin to Ireland and the British Isles. Someone editing an article on the Isle of Man should not be subject to remedies related to The Troubles unless the material they were editing actually related to The Troubles. The sanctions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands applied a remedy specifically to the article currently named Senkaku Islands and then a separate remedy to all other islands in the area. It would appear to me that Ryukyu Islands are not another name for the topic which is currently named Senkaku Islands, and so remedy 8 would apply. I'm not sure how to reword the remedy to make it clearer that remedy 7 only applies to "The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands". The wording seems fairly precise, and is worded such as the name of the article was being changed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the intent of the remedies in the Senkaku Islands case is broad enough to allow an administrator to impose discretionary sanctions concerning Ryukyu Islands and Ryukyu Arc, even though there is no current sovereignty dispute (that I'm aware of) concerning the Ryukyus. If anyone strongly disagrees, then an an arbitrator motion here to clarify the situation might be warranted. However, before anyone imposes discretionary sanctions, I would ask whether there are serious, chronic problems with these articles (as was the case with the Senkaku Islands and before that with the currently-in-the-news Liancourt Rocks). If the problem basically arises from a single disruptive editor, then invoking the whole rigmarole of discretionary sanctions may be unnecessary and more traditional ANI type remedies might suffice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to the follow-up question, it clearly falls within 8 and it very borderline falls within 7. If it's ambiguous and we really need discretionary sanctions on this article, I'll make a motion. But I'm still not convinced this problem doesn't involve more than one disruptive editor (and/or a content dispute, I add so I'm not prejudging), in which case it should resolvable more straightforwardly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Zoological conspiracy theories (Israel related)

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Tijfo098

I simply submit to you that the creative restrictions imposed are not working as expected, but are simply gamed to arbitrarily remove content from that page, cf. WP:AE#Dlv999. I request that the imbalance be addressed by a similar restriction on removing content without consensus. This has been done before, for example at Mass killings under Communist regimes. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@KC & TC. If they are working as intended and you saw no gaming from the deletionists, then why is Dream Focus not blocked for this and his open defiance [15] of ArbCom sanctions? TC, you have made promises to met "longish blocks" to editors under your creative restrictions [16], which clearly indicate that you approve of Dvl999's actions. Please explain why you think his deletion was appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see that TC has tweaked the wording on the restrictions in the meantime. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was also considering reporting to AE the insertion of some original research in the article [17] [18] [19] and direct accusation against two editors of being on a mission "to spread hate" [20], but given that the two admins always ruling over this appear to share that viewpoint, I won't bother with AE anymore. And if T. Canens wants that article deleted on such grounds, he should do it himself. It's not unheard of [21]. Oh, and Elen of the Roads should be immediately ejected from ArbCom. She's definitely up to no good; see [22] [23]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jethro B: My last sentence was a pun on Wikipedia's own conspiracy theory involving User:!!. There's no chance anyone on ArbCom would take that as anything but a joke. I hope. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this meets AGK's approval. Oh, and enjoy the new article: Persecution by Muslims. Muslims == KKK?? [24] [25] Tijfo098 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnkhMorpork

This echoes my previous concerns regarding these novel restrictions and their susceptibilty to abuse - which took all of two days to manifest itself. I support the need to reevaluate the efficacy of these restricitons and to consider extending them to equally cover existing content in this article. Currently, they simultaneously preclude good-faith additions and improvements, yet allow unilateral content removal by individual editors that totally eschew any attempt at collaborative discussion seeing as the need for it has now been obviated. While the restrictions were well-intentioned, they are proving wholly inadequate. Ankh.Morpork 19:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer

I concur with the proposal -- to add to the restriction to anyone removing sourced material or at least to exclude from the restrictions any sourced content that was already in the article before the restrictions took place (grandfather in). The current rules leave the article open to gaming. Anyone can remove material with some vague edit summary and then demand another consensus for its inclusion, which will have to be approved by an uninvolved administrator that will have to be tracked down somehow. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement AndyTheGrump

I agree that the restrictions imposed by are not working - but not for the reasons given above. They have simply been ignored, whether wilfully, or by accident, and material has been added without consensus to an article which has widely been seen (at for example the recent AfD discussions [26]) as burdened with WP:OR, poor sourcing, and significant POV-driven editing. Frankly, at this point I can see no hope for any consensus-based solutions short of topic-banning the more overt POV-pushers, and fully protecting the article. Loosening restrictions to encourage more edit-warring makes no sense whatsoever. This is a contentious subject, for which much source material seems intended to cast people in a negative light, and as such it seems entirely reasonable that the burden of proof should be on those wishing to add material to our article - as is normal Wikipedia policy. The restrictions are in fact little more than WP:BRD extended and formalised in such a way as to prevent further questionable editing of a contentious article. What is necessary is that they be enforced, and that the article be made to conform to WP:NPOV standards - and if it cannot (which seems entirely possible, given the subject matter), regardless of (rather equivocal) AfD decisions, Wikipedia may have to do without it entirely. That is probably outside the remit of this discussion, however... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KillerChihuahua

I am completely uninvolved. The only way I have even touched this is to comment in the Uninvolved admins section on an AE request regarding this. That said, in the very short time that case has been open it has become clear that loosening restrictions is not in the best interest of this article. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jethro B

One of the main issues with the restrictions is that it allows editors to get away with violating 1RR as long as they're removing "original research." By this, editors are gaming it, so that if RS wrote about how aliens invaded Palestinian farms and destroyed the crops as requested by Israel, it'd be removed as "Source doesn't say it's conspiracy, so how is the connection made that it's a conspiracy?" Or if the reference writes that a "myth circulated" about it, it'd get removed as "source doesn't write it's a conspiracy, only a myth" (this actually happened). In other cases, you have editors who will remove sections and violate 1RR in doing so, knowing that despite the 1RR violation, it will allow for the content to be simply removed without discusion, and any attempts to reinsert it will require a discussion, which that editor will just object and thus not allow for consensus.

There have been cases where sections have been removed that even uninvolved editors disagree with removing. There wasn't any discussion to remove it. But once removed, no matter what the reason, it's very tough to get it back in - because a lengthy discussion with consensus is needed, and that consensus will just be broken by one editor who opposes putting it in. So what we're getting here are bogus excuses to remove content that even uninvolved editors disagree with, all in "compliance" with the restrictions.

I think they should definitely be changed. I really don't see how this article can be that much more special and contentious than some other I-P articles here. The normal rules in ARBPIA should suffice here, and they've been working up until two weeks ago, when the restrictions were made in response to a report filed because an editor violated 1RR. --Jethro B 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlv99 - with respect to Tijfo, as far as I'm aware he wasn't involved in the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment thread here, and opened up this one recently as a result of the AE thread. In addition, although not commenting on admin bias at ArbCom, the admin who blocked Bali was not an admin this AE thread or the ArbCom clarification thread here, so I don't think that'd count as rejecting proof of bias, if bias does exist here. --Jethro B 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlv99 - thanks, didn't notice that, although in both cases it's been opened by 2 different editors in response to two different stimuli, both of which I feel are legitimate. However, you should be aware that this thread isn't meant to sanction you, which is the AE thread, but rather as an offshoot of the AE thread to discuss the restrictions as a whole. --Jethro B 16:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AKG - Really? Let's forget the glaring issues with Bali's version... He tried to insert it into the article once. He got reverted. Rather than discuss it and try to get it inserted, what does he do? He waits a few days, maybe the editors will go away, and then inserts it again. He doesn't explain in his edit summary "Reinserting content that was reverted a few days ago," giving people like me the impression this is completely new. If your edits are reverted, how can you just come in a few days later and expect to put it back in without a discussion? Then we have some glaring issues with it. Firstly, the attempt to minimize the conspiracy as very brief and quick, along with WP:OR (exactly what the restrictions are meant to eliminate), weasel wording, and a POV editorial bias. In short, if Bali felt his edit was the best version, he should've participated in the WP:BRD process. Not "bold, revert, revert a few days later" process. --Jethro B 00:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo - I don't see the connection between some article called Persecution of Muslims and this article. I've never edited that article or its AfD, and others involved in this dispute haven't either. There aren't restrictions on that article like there are here. In short, it's not relevant here, unless it's a cunning attempt to get some editors here to vote on its AfD, but I know you to be a better editor than that so I'm really perplexed at the reason for mentioning it. --Jethro B 21:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

As far as I can see, the restrictions appear to be working as intended. Neither our resident puppy nor I have seen any actionable gaming. Some people may not like how they are designed to operate; that does not mean that they are broken. As to the "Mass killings restriction", it was the consensus among AE admins, when it was last discussed in this lengthy AE thread, that it is not a particularly useful restriction in many cases.

In imposing the restrictions, I have already considered and rejected the possibility of "grandfathering in" existing material. Given the lengthy partisan wrangling over this article, I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material. I opted for the present approach of permitting easy removal of existing material, which will still preserve uncontroversial instances, rather than a significantly more aggressive approach seen in this BLPSE action.

I also don't see why this couldn't have been handled at the currently open AE thread. This is striking me more and more like running to the other parent when AE admins don't see any gaming, especially since the last arbcom thread on these very restrictions was closed less than a week ago. I respectfully request that the committee close this one speedily. AE simply can't properly operate if the restrictions applied are brought to the committee, and the admin who imposed them forced to defend them, every few days. T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I've seen what AnkhMorpork posted below, and will not be dignifying it with a response unless the committee requests. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to T Canens

The primary purpose of discretionary editing restrictions on an article is to to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment in contentious areas prone to misconduct. When this has been created, Wikipedia assumes that editorial discussions and the ensuing consensus will adequately govern the nature of an article; this is a fundamental policy - that all editors can contribute equally to the make-up of an article, that there exists a clear separation of powers between the executive (admins) and the legislature (editors). Admins should facilitate discussion and not attempt to foist their views on others.

That being said, you have twice explained that your restrictions were predicated on your personal views regarding the subject. The imposition of the restrictions should not determined by whether you "had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material." Yet, you unilaterally imposed unique restriction designed to promote your particular point of view in a content dispute without deigning to seek admin consensus for this measure. In the words of Silktork: "I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first." Why are you of the view that your view is of pre-eminent importance that you, by yourself, can seek to forcefully alter the shape of this article through use of administrative privilege? I remind you of discretionary sanction guidance: you are expected to balance the provision of "responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground". I submit that the you have restricted good-faith improvement entirely and compounded this by allowing for pernicious abuse of the restrictions, to the extent that exasperated editors that have never previously participated in these discussions or topics are imploring for an alteration or arbitration enforcement.

As to your comment that this was recently discussed, I would assume that you are cognisant with what PhilKnight said: "Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course". Well the answer to that is obviously they're pathetically useless and when you have editors returning from 6 month sabbaticals, two days after your restrictions, to remove vast sections with nary a talk page comment, I am surprised that you see this in any other way. Or then again, based on your above predilections, perhaps not. Ankh.Morpork 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, do you feel that the previous discussion at Arbcom in which I questioned the efficacy of your novel restrictions and their susceptibility to gaming, coupled with your personal declaration that " I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material", might affect your objectivity in assessing at AE whether content removal games your restrictions that you previously vouched for? Ankh.Morpork 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlv999

Seems like WP:FORUMSHOPING to me. The issue was already raised at the previous request for clarification last week. [27] The editor was told that any evidence of gaming should be presented to AE. [28] An AE case was filed [29] - the two uninvolved admins who have commented so far have not seen evidence of gaming or actionable behavior in the diffs provided. And now we are back here with the same issue being raised again. Are we just going to keep going round in circles with this until the editors get their own way? Dlv999 (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo098 Regarding the most recent diffs you have presented: The editor in question has already been given a week block so I don't really think this is a credible case of Admin bias as you are suggesting. Dlv999 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jethro B, Tijfo098 was in fact a party to the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment discussion last week [30]. With the greatest respect, if you do not know what the facts are I'm not sure why you feel the need to make such a comment. Dlv999 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NMMNG

@AGK Are you serious? Bali's edit was 80% editorial and consisted mainly of his interpretation of the sources. Moreover, he did not seek consensus for it on the talk page per the additional sanctions being discussed here, but chose to edit war his preferred version into the article. He could have just removed any problematic text which would then have needed to gain consensus to be put back in the article.

Nobody needs to "bait" Bali for him to lash out, he does that regularly and frequently. In fact, if you look at some of the edit summaries he used, he "lashed out" against living people who have wikipedia articles as well. I wonder what they did to bait him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68

This would be a good opportunity for ArbCom/WP's administration to show that WP:NPOV in an enforceable policy. Look at the article's edit history, look at the article's talk page, note which editors are tring to use it to disparage Arab/Palestinian culture and/or politics, make a decision, then act on that decision. Now's a good time. Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 108.60.151.4 - Agree with NMMNG

I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it, but AGK's comments demonstrate his extreme immaturity. An arbitrator must conduct arbitrations in an impartial manner. An arbitrator should avoid any conduct that might give the appearance of partiality towards any party. AGK writes: "Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section." and then "(As an arbitrator, I'm unable to be involved in the enforcement process, or I would hand out AE blocks myself.)"? What kind of arbitrator AGK is?

Bali Ultimate, you say you are a named professional except you behave as a named idiot. Named professionals come to Wikipedia to write articles and not to be ""meanie" on talk pages." Now you are blocked, and when the block expires you'd come back with your tail between your legs or else. It is the only thing you've achieved so far. — 108.60.151.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:18, 6 October 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012 regarding AGK comment

I concurr with Bali Ultimate answer on this talk page : "AGK, you have just illustrated the dysfunction of the website's approach, and why it fails so badly in these areas. Someone like me, a named [person], will be easily blocked for being a "meanie" on talk pages. People who skew content in service of a cause (frequently one, as in this case, that seeks to advance its agenda by dehumanizing a whole culture) are left to merrily go about their business on the articles (the stuff the general public sees) so long as they are "civil." Please also note that this is going on in a great many more articles, most of them of far more importance and general interest, than the one I tried to make a point of fixing.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

I fully agree with this analysis and it is proved by what is written just here above : "I do not care if Bali Ultimate's edits improved the article or worsen it (...)."

The 1st pillar of wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedy. 2nd and 3rd pillars remind the quality standards should be high. The 4th pillar that requires politeness and civility is very important but it is used in this area of articles to canevass their development. One way or the other, external observers (Arbcom members, uninvolved sysops) should analyse the context of the conflicts based on this problematic. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wnt

I request that all of T. Canens' September 2012 edicts be suspended from this page. In contradiction to the Talk Page notice, I see nothing here or here calling for prior restraint on edits. Eventually I tracked down the history to [31] in which the policy is unilaterally decreed, and editors either vehemently disagree with it or go off on tangents. This directly contradicts Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which says "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" more to the point, it is not a sanction against "any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." To the contrary, it includes a sanction against even a completely naive and good faith editor who, coming to the article page, and not seeing any special edit notice, adds a story that seems relevant in his consideration. The talk page notice explicitly says that "Editors who violate the above restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

I should also point out that the scope of this article is very arbitrary. Of all the animal conspiracy theories in the world, we've singled out those about Israel for a special article based on one or two articles connecting them. More plausible allegations have been made, for example, about the U.S. airdropping thrips on Cuba. A reorganization, e.g. by species, is very much appropriate, which to me suggests that either these special restrictions should be eliminated, or eventually they will spread to infect articles even less related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, let alone to the original editors in the arbitration case.

The mere fact that some editors have had an interpersonal squabble based on their opinions in the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not mean that new editors a random article about allegations about Israelis in Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be subjected to unreasonable sanctions!

I should add that I am curious how many other articles have been subjected to such unusual sanctions as this one. I should point out that there is a risk that, if a lot of Israel-related topics are treated to sanctions that affect even new good-faith editors, Wikipedia itself may become the object of a Zionist conspiracy theory. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have already opined on Bali ultimate's talk page about the recent edit war in the "Shark attacks" section of this article:

    Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section. While I do not condone BU's comments on the article talk page, his edits neutralised some glaring problems with the POV in the Shark attacks section. The POV of that section was totally skewed, whereas Bali's re-write restored some balance and reason—and made it clear how laughable the "sharks" theory really is. This is a classic case of POV-pushers baiting somebody like BU into verbally lashing out.

    To me, the problem is that edits to this article are being policed only for decorum, and that obvious POV-pushing is being disregarded. I therefore advise the enforcement team to examine complaints about this article in more detail, and to look at the substance of incidents and edits. Rarely is only one side to blame, and sometimes editors lose their head for reasons which are actually valid. AGK [•] 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a request regarding Timotheus Canens posting these restrictions on the Israel-related animal conspiracy theories article, which was recently discussed and archived on 26 Sept as being acceptable. I am not comfortable with general editing restrictions being applied to articles without there being some form of discussion and consensus sought first; but as these restrictions have been discussed, and there is a consensus for them, then a reasonable amount of time must be given to see how they work, and for any problems to be worked through via discussion on the article talkpage or on AE. It's perhaps too soon to be bringing this back to ArbCom. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that TC has recently modified these sanctions, I think we should allow some time before determining their effectiveness. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 7 October 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 [33] [34] [35] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [36], 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. [37] [38] [39]

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]

  • Clarification: "I now no longer change accessdates" was intended to be prefaced by the context of 'access dates in ISO format'. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:54, 1 October 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 [40]. 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: [41].

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, [42], 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]
Comments made after the request was re-opened
  • 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]
  • While we agreed this matter must be re-visited, I must confess I've lost track of what, if anything, we need to decide here. If nobody can point to a pending problem with OC's edits (or any current arbitration decision) that requires this committee's attention, I think this request should be archived. Jclemens, if you are reading, might you point me to a summary of relevant, pending issues? AGK [•] 22:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of this appears to have got lost. I am for this being archived. If there is an issue for us to clarify, a fresh request could be made. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=516553036"