Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: [1]|Request for clarification: [2]]]	none	none	12 September 2010

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: [3]

Initiated by olive (talk) at 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect At Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Timid Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edith Serius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement:Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration[4]ruling that impacts a restriction placed on me.

A. Clarification of “warning” per this section of the TM arbitration:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question Shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

Jmh649 (Doc James) made a unilateral edit. [5] I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. [6]He warned me citing WP:UNDUE [7] and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions[8]

• How can an editor be warned for something that isn’t wrong?

• Should a warning per the arbitration be specific to the error the editor has made? Doc James warns me for WP:UNDUE, although never explains what he means, but then asks to have me sanctioned for editing against consensus and for edit warring.

• Who warns? Editors involved in a discussion, uninvolved editors/admins?

B. Reverting against consensus in an RfC:

The RfC was not closed, [9] and no consensus had been shown. Doc James called this edit warring. I had told him on the talk page I would only revert once should he want to revert me. [10]. I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead. [11]

C. Edit warring:

Doc James uses these five edits across almost a week, but there is nothing close to violating 3RR. Edith’s edit is not the same content as any of the other “reverts.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [12] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [13]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [14] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[15] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[16] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [17] 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C I don’t see how this is a violation at all, or evidence of tag-team editing. And there was no consensus. Shouldn’t “that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles." from the arbitration be adhered to?

D. Additional irregularities:

• In the AE proceedings. Despite a note expalining I would be able to comment later in the day, FP sanctioned me before I could defend myself and the case was closed. Was there “gross misconduct”?

• I was sanctioned with two other editors. Per the TM arbitratioin neither

sockpuupetry nor meat puppetry was shown, but the sanction suggests we are one editor. The restriction was given with no time limit.

E. Request to have the restriction overturned:

A clarification would be useful in future situations helping to prevent any possible misunderstandings, and or mistakes. As well, I can¹t see that I violated Wikipedia policy /guidelnes, and neither in “spirit nor letter”, the arbitration, so would ask that consideration be given to overturning the 1RR restriction against me.

---