Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
→Statement:Littleolive oil: bold for editors who may have missed this |
→Arbitrator views and discussion: Not a clarification |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
=== Arbitrator views and discussion === |
||
*This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum. Clerks, please close and make sure that any relevant info is copied as appropriate. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 15:56, 15 September 2010
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement|Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement]] | none | none | 12 September 2010 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement
Initiated by olive (talk) at 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Jmh649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Future Perfect At Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notified: TimidGuy[1], Future Perfect At Sunrise[2]Jmh649[3]Cirt[4]Edith Siruis Lee[5]
Statement:Littleolive oil
I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration ruling [6] that impacts a restriction placed on me.[7]
A. Clarification of “warning” per this section of the TM arbitration:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question Shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.
Jmh649 (Doc James) made a unilateral edit. [8] I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. [9]He warned me citing WP:UNDUE [10] and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions[11]
- How can an editor be warned for something that isn’t wrong?
- Should a warning per the arbitration be specific to the error the editor has made? Doc James warns me for WP:UNDUE, although never explains what he means, but then asks to have me sanctioned for editing against consensus and for edit warring.
- Who warns? Editors involved in a discussion, uninvolved editors/admins?
B. Reverting against consensus in an RfC: [12]
The RfC was not closed, [13] and no consensus had been shown. Doc James called this edit warring. I had told him on the talk page I would only revert once should he want to revert me. [14]. I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead. [15]
C. Edit warring:
Doc James uses these five edits across almost a week, but there is nothing close to violating 3RR. Edith’s edit is not the same content as any of the other “reverts.
1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC: [16] : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors
2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: [17]06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A
3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: [18] 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A
4. Littleolive does not follow RfC:[19] 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…
5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead[20] 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B
6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes [21] 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C
I don’t see how this is a violation at all, or evidence of tag-team editing. And there was no consensus. Shouldn’t “that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles." from the arbitration be adhered to?
D. Additional irregularities:
- In the AE appeal, despite a note explaining I would be able to comment later in the day, FP sanctioned me before I could defend myself, and the case was closed. Was there “gross misconduct”?
- I was sanctioned with two other editors. Per the TM arbitration neither sockpuppetry nor meat puppetry was shown, but the sanction suggests we are one editor. The restriction was given with no time limit.
E. Request to have the restriction overturned:
A clarification would be useful for future situations helping to prevent any possible misunderstandings, and or mistakes. As well, I was restricted for 2 reverts of completely different content made over several days, I can¹t see that I violated Wikipedia policy /guidelnes, and neither in “spirit nor letter”, the arbitration, so would ask that consideration be given to overturning the 1RR restriction against me.
To the arbitration commitee re: Comments by Cirt:
Per the TM arbitration:"Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed...thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee". [22]
I hope the Arbitrators and or AE enforcers will respect my request to have this clarification dealt with here in this more neutral environment. That two appeals were posted around the same time is sheer coincidence. I can't imagine that meat puppets would be silly enough to post so close together inviting the usual and predictable narrative. The two issues at stake are the lack of evidence of wrongdoing, and the lack of following the procedure by the sanctioning admin as outlined by ArbCom. Those are the significant and only points here. Anything else deflects from the real issues.(olive (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC))
Statement by Will Beback
FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), has requested an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee. Will Beback talk 06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- This does seem to be an appeal rather than a request for clarification, and if so it duplicates the WP:AE appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee. While it may not have been the intent, it has the effect of forum shopping. I think it would be appropriate to merge the appeals and deal with them in one location, either WP:AE or WP:ARA. Will Beback talk 07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Jmh649
User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here [23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Cirt
- Chronology of recent appeals
- 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
- 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.
- Notes
- It seems quite odd that both of these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts (see [24] and [25]) filed appeals, at two different locations, on the same day, within less than two hours of each other.
- This seems like forumshopping of very similar requests to multiple Wikipedia-process pages at the same time, and also possible meat-puppetry as a tactic, initiating multiple debates about what is substantively the same issue.
- Question
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement
- Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with this comment [26], by Will Beback - this request by Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), above, does indeed seem like forumshopping. It also appears to be more of an appeal than a request for "clarification" about anything in particular, rather a form of protestation. As such, it should be merged into the already-existing and duplicate-appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), on WP:AE, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Fladrif
This "Request for Clarification" appears not to seek clarification at all, but rather to appeal the AE sanctions. The arguments being presented do not seek clarification of anything, but instead argue that the sanctions were improperly and improvidently imposed. The appealing party admits as much, stating that the issues are "lack of evidence of wrongdoing" and "lack of following procedure by the sanctioning admin". Cirt's observation that this request appears to be forum shopping is essentially admitted, when the appealing party states that she hopes that her request will be dealt with "here in this more neutral environment". Apparently she believes that the AE Appeals process is not a neutral environment, and thus wants to avoid having her complaint heard there. Such forum shopping should not be permitted. These sanctions were not the result was not some rogue admin acting precipitously without evidence, process or justification: at least three uninvolved administrators strongly agreed with the sanctions that were imposed. [27][28][29] They should not be lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Edith Sirius Lee
I want to comment about the suggestion that Olive and I should have worked together and agreed about the way to react to the AE (the location, etc.). As I said in my appeal, if I was mislead and broken a rule, then I apologize. However, common sense tells me that Olive should not be limited in her actions because of actions that I have taken. In the past, we have been in disagreements about procedures, etc. We do not think alike. She should have her way. I should have my way. I might contribute further to the discussion here, but for now this is all what I have to say. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum. Clerks, please close and make sure that any relevant info is copied as appropriate. — Coren (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)