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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 19 January 2010 (→‎Statement by Fut.Perf.: vicious cycle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley Motion none 11 January 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)]] none none 1 January 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list]] none none 31 December 2009

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley

Initiated by William M. Connolley (talk) at 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by your name

Abd's involvement in AFD appears to rise to an infrigement of his ban, e.g. the discussion here [2]: It is not normal discussion for one participant in an AfD, which is a community process, to respond to most comments on one side with argument. If there is more evidence to be presented, by all means, present it, but there is never evidence for non-notability, so I'd recommend shutting up and let editors present what evidence they have.... The arbcomm ban Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute... doesn't define "dispute"; do arguements at AFD rise to the level of "dispute" within the meaning of the ban? Note the "harassment" stuff here [3].

@M, V: fair enough; I thought it might be more usefully handled as a clarification, but if you'd rather see it at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Abd William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@V: as it turns out, the discussion at AE is turning on the meaning of the word "polls" in your judgement, so the issue of clarification remains open William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abd

Someone should tell WMC that his slip is showing. He has no need for this clarification, because he should not be involved with enforcing the restrictions, nor should Mathsci or other involved editors, whose recent actions are rising, indeed, to the level of harassment and baiting. I'm allowed by the restrictions to participate in polls, and that's what an AfD is. My comment there was not outside the envelope for normal poll participation. If i'm incorrect, indeed, ArbComm is welcome to clarify, for my intention is to respect ArbComm decisions no matter how stupid or intelligent. If I want to appeal them to WMF, I will, otherwise, not.

The harassment comment, as can be seen from the first diff WMC gives, I struck. I made a simple response to the AfD on the irrelevance of classic bad AfD arguments as part of my Keep !vote, and the ensuing brief discussion occurred because the nominator elected to respond personally to me, it wasn't necessary. The article in question is of marginal notability, I had previously reviewed it during the second AfD, and the whole process and its repetition is an example of how Wikipedia multiplies debate over simple questions because people become personally involved and tenaciously push for what they want instead of moving on. What WMC appears to want is the fulfillment of his prediction, stated long before the events that came to ArbComm's attention, that I'd end up banned because I meddled, by pointing out, on his Talk page, his infamous use of tools while involved, at a point when I was neutral and actually generally supported his POV. Had he heeded the warning, he'd still be an administrator.

WMC should not be allowed to waste ArbComm's time with frivolous requests. Let neutral administrators who need clarification, in order to enforce remedies, ask questions like this, or let an affected party do it. My previous request wasn't fully answered, but I'll handle that by email to arbcom-l, if I feel the need. --Abd (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana: Well, to give WMC's request a positive construction, he's asking for clarification of the sanction, and the problem is that he's not the one who would need it, I suspect. He has no legitimate purpose to intervene in this case -- and the last one --, unless he's planning to be the monitor, with Mathsci, of my behavior. Mathsci voted in the AfD right after I did. I could go back and find lots of examples of what could be wikistalking, and evidence of intent to harass. But it really should be simple. A review of the RfAr should show that WMC and Mathsci should be hands-off, unless specific article business requires them to interact with me. ArbComm sanctions should not be enforced (or enforcement requested) by highly involved editors unless they are personally being affected by the sanctioned editor's behavior, that's a general principle that should be considered here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell and Enric Naval. No admin who acts within the spirit of recusal policy has anything to fear from me, even if they make mistakes. No sysop has lost his or her privileges simply from blocking me, nor have any been taken by me to RfAr over it or even a noticeboard. The only direct loss was for WMC, who insisted on the right to block me long after it was blatantly and blindingly obvious to everyone else that he shouldn't, and he went ahead anyway, while the case was being considered. Sure, if I'm blocked without cause, and it's not a mere short block but indef, and I put up an unblock template and it's denied without what I consider good cause, I'd go to ArbComm. It's my right (and their right to decline or accept the case, so if there is a problem for an admin, ArbComm has decided it's worth examining).
Sure, an admin should be careful about blocking me, but shouldn't they be even more careful about editors less able to defend themselves? I see these comments added here today. Who's maintaining disruption over this, stirring the pot? Tznkai makes a harmless or even helpful comment on my Talk page about an alleged violation, and bang! WMC and Enric Naval are all over it at User_talk:Tznkai#Abd, with Enric Naval bringing in off-wiki "evidence" that I'd be happy for ArbComm to consider, if necessary. But I would never bring that kind of thing here unless it was crucial and necessary. If I'm clearly violating my restriction, any admin can block me and ask questions later. It's what happens later that separates the sober administrators from those who are not. I welcome intervention by truly neutral administrators, even if they do something I don't like, because, usually, I can reason with them and they make reasonable decisions, pretty quickly. If it's unclear, then either AE or RfAr/Clarification are the place to go.
There is a problem with MastCell's "spirit of the sanction" proposal. There is no spirit of the sanction, because there is no spirit, no soul, so to speak, behind it, there is just a statement that was made with little deliberation as to what it meant, and why it was being implemented, and what prior damage was being prevented, and it may have meant different things to different arbitrators -- and I think it did. I wrote that I'd write to arbomm-l if I needed clarification, and I didn't think it was needed yet. Perhaps that's my ADHD, it can manifest as a puzzling failure to intuit what people mean if it is not contained in what they say. If I were doing actual damage, ongoing, just banning me until some other solution appeared might be appropriate. But sometimes when one person is getting a number of people upset, blame isn't actually appropriate for that person. Sometimes questions are being raised that must be raised, sooner or later. The existence of massive disruption from a brief comment is a sign that this is the situation. And some good can come out of that. Now or later. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoRight

It is evident that WMC means to pursue Abd beyond reason and to hound and harass him at every opportunity. This request is vexatious as Abd's restrictions specifically allow him to participate in polls such as an AfD.

I would ask that the committee amend the decision to include an interaction ban on WMC with respect to Abd. This would seem prudent to maintain a harmonious working environment. --GoRight (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is worth noting that WMC has not participated in the AfD, [4], or at the article itself, [5], so one is left wondering just how WMC came to be aware of this issue in the first place? I'll leave it to Arbcom to decide whether there is an actionable behavioral concern here on the part of WMC. --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @My good friend Mathsci: Perhaps WMC should be encouraged to remove Abd's talk page from his watch list through the imposition of an interaction ban then. That should cut down on these vexatious requests. --GoRight (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

This does look premature to me, although it shows the usual signs of Abd digging his heels in and preparing for a fight. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

  • Abd still seems to be testing the limits of his editing restrictions. His reaction to the last clarification on his talk page was not encouraging. [6] It doesn't seem that any further clarification is necessary here. As Vassayana suggests, a request should be made on WP:AE, if users think there are problems with the nature of his participation in this AfD.
  • 129 people have Abd's talk page on their watchlists - presumably WMC is one of those.
  • Offliner (talk · contribs) has already indicated that Abd had joined the EEML in his evidence for the EEML ArbCom case. It seems reasonable to suppose that Abd found out about this particular AfD through that mailing list or some other form of off-wiki correspondence with that group of editors.

Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Abd seems to think that an AN ban discussion is a poll[7]. Tznkai (the admin in the AE thread) has told Abd that this one is a violation of the ban [8]. See related discussions User_talk:Tznkai#Abd and User_talk:Abd#Reminder_of_editing_restriction.

Does this need a clarification, or do we let AE handle it as an obvious violation? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: Pst, make a clarification: Are ban discussions considered to be "polls"? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I initially viewed this request as unnecessary, but recent events have convinced me of its importance. Abd doesn't take the MYOB restriction seriously. That was evident in his response to an earlier violation, and in his response to a more recent violation.

Abd's disrespect for the spirit of the restriction is enabled when other editors offer to proxy for him to get around the restriction. Presumably, the restriction was not intended to encourage sympathetic editors to repost Abd's contributions in their own name, but to actually keep him out of external disputes where his input has proven counterproductive again and again. I'm reminded of Martinphi (talk · contribs); every time a banned editor like Davkal (talk · contribs) or Iantresman (talk · contribs) would create a sock to attack another editor, Martin would restore the material by saying, "I'm not banned, and I agree with this." That sort of exercise may or may not be "legal", in a narrow legalistic sense, but it seems deeply antithetical to the spirit of the restriction.

My prior experience leads me to envision at least two possible branches from this point:

  1. Abd continues to test the boundaries and seriousness of his restriction. At some point, people will realize that "words to the wise", however wise they may be, have no effect here, and an admin will block him. At that point, the blocking admin will be subject to a grinding barrage of litigation and argumentation attempting to prove that they are "involved", "biased", etc.
  2. Abd is told in no uncertain terms to respect the spirit of his restriction. He is told that if he doesn't understand the spirit of the restriction, then he should seek clarification prospectively from ArbCom before involving himself in disputes. Sympathetic editors who enable Abd to evade the spirit of his ban are asked to stop. If any of these clear limits are overstepped, then Abd is blocked.

Personally, I think the second option is better. Of course, my observation of previous litigation involving Abd has made me extremely cynical, so perhaps things aren't as dichotomous as I've described them to be. Then again, the groundwork for pathway #1 is already being laid. This feels depressingly like a game; certainly I get the sense Abd is treating it that way, and I'd rather it were nipped in the bud. MastCell Talk 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I dealt with Abd today in what I considered a quite straightforward act of enforcement of the current editing restriction [9]. The response I got from him, full of assumptions of bad faith, accusations, attempts of intimidation, and threats, was unacceptable. Enforcing the Arbcom decision under these conditions is a highly depressing and stressful exercise, so a clarification or possibly amendment would be appreciated. The rule as stated is vague, it's always been and has remained so even after the latest amendment: no discussing "disputes", but "voting and commenting at polls"? But where does a normal editorial content discussion end, and where does a "dispute" start? Which activities are "polls"? And why are polls exempted anyway; what makes us think his intervention in those has any less potential of growing disruptive than his intervention anywhere else? Since he is gaming these rules, the rules must be tightened. MastCell describes the situation quite well above. As another alternative, I only see the prospect of seeking a community sanction in the form of a full siteban on top of the Arbcom decision. That won't be achieved without yet more blood, sweat and tears, but it might be worth it – there's currently hardly any net positive coming from Abd; he has been making only insignificant numbers of mainspace edits and seems to be spending all his time playing around the edges of his restrictions stirring and perpertuating his disputes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect of Abd's technique of perpetuating conflict despite the restrictions can be seen here. The logic is this: (a) There is a dispute in which Abd is not a originating party. (b) Abd comments on the dispute, breaching restriction. (c) Admin tells Abd not to breach restriction. (d) Abd attacks admin. (e) By attacking the admin, Abd has now created a dispute in which he is a party, which he then cites as a pretext to continue commenting on the initial dispute (a). Obviously, this cycle can and will be repeated ad infinitum. It's just like the "make-admins-involved" cycle: (a) Abd misbehaves; (b) Admin warns Abd; (c) Abd misbehaves against admin; (d) Admin responds; (e) Abd now claims admin is "involved" and therefore barred from taking action. These cycles need to be stopped, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

Its amazing what kind of conversations can happen on your talk page without your participation or even knowledge. First time I logged in today what with a real life that surfaces for several days at a time. If I've got the basic time line here, we had this request for clarification, which lead to an AE request, which I handled a week ago (Jan 12). Then, seperately, I saw that Abd had commented on an AN thread involving GoRight, now we're back here at the same request for clarification? So, which situation are we trying to clarify? I will likley comment further after I read my talk page and do the appropriate digging.--Tznkai (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Is there some reason I'm missing that this cannot be sorted out on WP:AE, as is normal for such matters? Vassyana (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse on all matters Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike some of the commenters, I view this as a legitimate request for clarification. On the merits, my view is substantially the same as Tznkai's administrator comment on the Request for enforcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motion proposed below to address at least part of the problem here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting

Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Support
  1. If there's enforcement to be done, let someone else handle it; neither of you should be involved with the other at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not so sure that WMC is the problem here, but I'm willing to see a complete and utter break in communication and interatcion between the two. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)

Initiated by The Four Deuces (talk) at 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by The Four Deuces

Are Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism, Putinism, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called Communist genocide and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded.[20] However I made a request to Martintg and received no response.[21] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MKUCR begins "The Mass killings under Communist regimes have occurred in the Soviet Union..." (my emphasis) which is a clear reference to Eastern Europe. The first historical example is the Soviet Union and there is a section about famine in the Ukraine. Communist terrorism is described as a "term... used... to describe... repression... in the Soviet Union (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, could you please strike out your comment concerning the "purpose of the complaint". (It is not even a complaint, it is a request for clarification.) You should realize that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about Eastern European emigres and their organizations

Are these articles included under the topic ban? One article, Lia Looveer is about an individual who was a director of several organizations, like the joint Baltic Committee, that lobbied local governments concerning political relations with the former Soviet Union. Vecrumba has commented on the talk page.[22] The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martintg

Offliner already asked, see User_talk:Coren#EE_topic_bans, and The Four Deuces is aware of this query. Mass killings under communist regimes has significantly changed since Communist genocide and now is an international topic of general scope that also includes subsections on China, North Korea and Cambodia, as well as a general discussion on communist ideology as a factor. I've attempted to adhere to the spirit and letter of the EE topic ban and have kept well away from any EE sub-topic within this article. On a practical level I would like to expand the section on Ethiopia (having found an interesting book that does a comparative study of the mass killings of both the Cambodian and Ethiopian regimes), in addition to North Korea and other non-EE sub topics. I had previously sought guidance on the case page, with a number of arbitrators offering advice, for example FayssalF stating "What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones", but I have asked Coren for additional clarification and he replied that it is okay to edit non-EE subtopics within Mass killings under communist regimes here, as long as I am careful, as I intend to be. As far as the other article examples mentioned by TFD:

--Martin (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve

Perhaps Steve wasn't aware that Coren was the one who originally drafted these topic bans, so I am some what astonished that he would disagree with Coren's own interpretation of what he himself drafted. Despite the fact that Coren is expressing his own opinion, I would have thought that he would know his own mind when he drafted these topic bans, and thus his interpretation of the remedies he himself drafted after spending several months hearing this case would carry some weight. Why does Steve finds "it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere"; it was extensively discussed on the EEML case Proposed Decision talk page, was that not the appropriate forum?

I must say that Fifelfoo's argument, that many other portions of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article can be linked to eastern Europe, stating "One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics" is some what disingenuous. Fifelfoo and his colleges have long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs, boards and on the article talk: that article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK because there is no linkage or relationship between the various communist regimes discussed in the article, hence their inclusion together amounts to synthesis. I know some people adapt their arguments according to the forum audience, but this 180 degree reversal of position in order to convince the committee to broaden the topic ban against adding material to Cambodian, North Korean or Ethiopian sub sections seems unreasonable.

The problem with broadening these topic bans to include topics like Communist terrorism, is where now do you draw the line. It turns an easily interpreted boundary into a fuzzy line which is open to interpretation. That currently about a third of Communist terrorism is devoted to EE is more a function of WP:BIAS than anything else, the remainder is unrelated to EE and in need of expansion which would greatly increase the proportion of non EE content within the article. Is Pacific War now off limits because the Soviet Union was a part of that war for the last 3 weeks of WW2? Is it now the mere existence of 20, 15, 10 or 5% of EE content within an article that puts it off limits? --Martin (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fifelfoo

If you believe there is no central theory linking the various regimes together and thus the article is a synthesized coatrack, how is it possible that you "find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage"? Either you can argue the article is a coatrack and hence the subsections can be alienated from each other, or you can argue that the subsections are related and cannot be alienated from each other (hence it is not a coatrack) and thus I should be banned from editing those subsections. But you cannot have it both ways. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are already on record as believing the article to be synthesis, I can only imagine the kind of mental gymnastics involved in maintaining that belief in the numerous forums and boards where you promoted the article's deletion while coming here to state "I find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage". --Martin (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Commodore Sloat

There was no "locus of dispute" determined in final decision. The closest thing being this, which stated in part that certain members of the mailing list perceived those editing from the Russian nationalist viewpoint as opponents. There was nothing in regard to "ideological agenda" or "anti-communist agenda" as Commodore Sloat falsely claims. Nor was Communist terrorism ever discussed on the maillist, its AfD occurred in 2008, well before the maillist was even created. It is sad that those who hold pro-communist viewpoints attempt to exploit reductio ad EEML arguments in order to expand these EE topic bans to all those they perceive as their anti-communist opponents just because one former EEML member (myself) has an interest in communist related topics. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fifelfoo

This is an important clarification. One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics. (but I do await seeing the theorisation in the Ethiopian-Cambodian study you mentioned) Another is that article content has barely changed since canvassed AFDs despite title change. A third is that article process which impacts on EE subtopics is stewed, and any involvement with process will be involvement in EE process (for example the theory only versus subtopics argument). Similarly participating in an AFD would be impacting on the EE components. Moreover I find it a curious argument that subportions of an article could be separated out. So please make a clear determination.

Regarding the need for clarification of extent, Martintg is currently participating in broad article process at MKUCR, and the discussion of who to solicit on the topic of the appropriateness of an AFD is ongoing. The issue is pertinent and current and needs resolution. 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "at least two failed AfDs," there were three, and they were No Consensus rather than keep which doesn't seem quite like a failure of the AFD process. Regarding the EE content of MKUCR, 2 1/3 units are clear EE, 3 1/6 units are clear non EE, 1/2 unit is mixed, 3 units are refs lede and toc (units being a screen length in front of me). Of the body content, the article is about half EE, or, of the entire article about a third is EE.
To Martintg, "Fifelfoo…[has] long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs". Actually, I have systematically argued that the article should be supported out of sources which theorise all the events listed as linked by a cause inhering in their communist nature: a general theory. A general theory will thus necessarily cover Asia, Africa, Europe (including EE), South America, etc. An RSed general theory would remove the COATRACK and SYNTH (as long as not-covered events were deleted). This has been a consistent and fixed position of mine, that the article must exist on the basis of an RS that theorises communist mass killings[etc] as linked and as caused by a common feature of communism. I'm not particularly interested in a broad or narrow restriction, but a definitive one; but I do find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage. 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If its a COATRACK and alienable, the article shouldn't exist at all, as it would be OR. If it isn't a COATRACK then it must have a general theory to over come SYNTH/OR, and thus its sections are inalienable. I don't want to push the article at AFD (yet again) until the article is in the best possible state it can be in (I measure this time in months), which means searching for a general theory to justify its existence (and believing that the article had a cause to exist as persuaded to do so), which is precisely what I have been doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Time to put down such use of ArbCom, ANI etc. See [23] with same complainants clarificants. [24] same complainants clarificants. And the multiple quick-order AfDs on the article. Tznkai said "Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)" The purpose of this complaint clarification is to remove editors with whom the complainants clarificants have a content dispute on any basis that they can find - including by going to every notice-board and process available. Use of ArbCom in order to have it get involved in content disputes is verging on abuse. Six bites at the apple should have been sufficient, no? Collect (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out a word objected to by The Four Deuces. Collect (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To igny: I am totally uninvolved in the EEML arbitration. Clearly if I make a comment here, I am "involved" if that is your criterion. [25] is my major edit in the article, which, I submit, is quite non-controversial. I made zero substantive edits to the article, so I find your claim of me being clearly "involved" regarding EEML to be rather unimportant. Collect (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

I am commenting only because Four Deuces solicited my presence. Dialog would be better served without observations contending collusion: "In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject" which propagates the meme that the editors named were impotent to find the article on their own or express their own opinion. I stated clearly what I thought "Communist genocide", the article, should encompass at the start of the brouhaha.
  The Cold War meme is that the Soviet Union was behind the spread of all Communism (capital "C"). The reality is that more than one despot perverted communism (small "c") to their self-serving purpose. Where the article in question here and others are concerned, it's up to the editors currently topic banned to show good judgement. It's also up to their editorial opposition to similarly show good judgement.
  Lastly, to request clarification for hypothetical edits which have not occurred ultimately only invites continued rhetoric. As for myself, I am looking forward to putting my sources regarding Russia to good use outside the area of conflict. I suggest closing this and opening a request for clarification if and when required based on an actual edit (and not open a request for enforcement, which is more often than not an act of bad faith assuming bad faith, i.e., guilty until proven innocent).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better mechanism might be for ArbCom to review editor contributions periodically, say monthly, rather than editors generating a potentially endless stream of requests for clarification or enforcement. Or contending Aspic is an area of geopolitical strife.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I regret my perception of Nsk92's below that seems to paint the EE conflict as exacerbated by the editors sanctioned as the result of the EEML procedings. Rather than dwell on possibilities of bad faith actions (gaming et al.), I suggest the periodic review to insure keeping heat out of the system in 2010.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Nsk92

I think it would indeed be useful for the Arbcom to explicitly clarify the scope of the topic bans in this case, given how much poking around the edges has already occurred and in order to prevent matters from getting out of hand. In my personal view, the topic bans in this case should be interpreted as broadly as possible, to cover any articles and project-space pages that are in a significant way related to Eastern Europe (and not just pages/articles on EE subjects as such). Thus articles like Communist terrorism and Bering Strait ought to be covered by this topic ban, even though only parts of them deal with EE-related matters. Moreover, again to avoid confusion and to prevent gaming attempts, it should be made clear that if the topic ban applies to a page, it applies to the entire page and not just to sections of it that are EE-related. Basically the informal test should be something like: if you even need to ask, then the page is covered by the topic ban. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the underlying topic bans, which is to prevent the spread of the kind of POV pushing and WP:BATTLE activities on EE-related subjects that led to the underlying arbcom case in the first place. Also, it should be made explicitly clear that the topic bans cover EE-related discussions at user talk pages. For example, non-sanctioned users should not be trying to engage the users under the topic bans, at the user talk pages of the latter, in EE-subject related discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biruitorul

Of course, Nsk92's statement (just like the bans themselves) sort of ignores what was actually happening. POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE activities were not happening at Bering Strait, or at Bărcăneşti, Ialomiţa, or at The Good Soldier Švejk, or at Mikhail Lermontov, or at Valdis Zatlers, or at Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna. Nor are they ever likely to. Trouble was generally confined to Alexander Litvinenko, Nashi (youth movement), Anti-Estonian sentiment, Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Human rights in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, 2008 South Ossetia war, Mass killings under Communist regimes, Russian apartment bombings and at most a couple of dozen other hotspots. The current topic bans are both punitive and damaging, and do nothing to address the underlying issue. The Committee was offered a constructive solution: find mediators to work with both "sides" to minimise conflict at those articles by referencing them thoroughly with high-quality sources. Instead it chose to decimate a slew of productive contributors who generally behave well, while neither addressing the wrongdoing by the other "side" nor proposing steps to defuse conflict at that group of articles. Personally, I believe the Committee would be wise to revisit the bans and retrieve the baby it has discarded with a few cups of bathwater. - Biruitorul Talk 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igny

This group of editors as well as the related case were called the EEML only because most of them (not all) came from the Eastern Europe, not because they edited the EE related articles exclusively. Some of them were placed under the EE topic ban with a wrong premise that most of the conflicts in which they participated originated from Eastern Europe, and that is also only partially true. Rather than restrict these editors from contentious areas (such as ideological information wars or wars over propaganda issues) the ArbCom chose to ban editing of obscure EE related topics (which are not all problematic as pointed out by many). Moreover, only parts of the article directly related to EE are covered by the ban, not the article in general.

Hence a question. If only part of the article is related to Eastern Europe, are the restricted editors allowed to participate in AfD process (say, due to irreparable POV issues of the article in general and the EE related part in particular) of these articles?

And, Collect, you are not uninvolved with regard to disputes over Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Igny (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Radek

I was not going to get involved in this but in light of Steve and Fritzpoll's comments below I find it necessary to make a reply.

Ok, let's get things straight here:

  • NOBODY here thinks that Putinism does not fall under the ArbCom topic bans. The ArbCom doesn't think so, those under the topic bans don't think so, Four Deuces doesn't think so. It's covered, everyone knows this. Likewise, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection pretty much falls under the topic bans, for the most part. Except that NOBODY, AFAIK, has any interest in editing that article anyway (article history - can anyone find any one related to arb case in it?). So why is it being brought up here? Why are we even discussing the obvious cases that everyone agrees on (as Steve points out)? Why is Putinism - an obvious case - being brought up here for that matter? And what makes those two articles different from the other two; Mass Killings and Communism Terrorism?
  • Basically Four Deuces includes these two articles along with Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism simply to create an association between articles which are obviously clear cut cases of falling under the topic ban with those which aren't. It's a cheap manipulative trick, mixing in one with the other, in the hope that it can be sold as a wholesale package. And judging from Fritzpoll's comment, it's working (hence this reply).
  • Furthermore. What else makes "Putnism" and "Eastern Bloc emigration" different from "Mass Killings" and "Communist Terrorism"? Well, the first two - the clear cut cases - are NOT being considered as candidates for deletion and no one is interested in deleting them. But, the other two - the ones that don't have much to do with Eastern Europe - are. In fact, if you check the talk page for "Mass Killings", this whole "request for clarification" arose after somebody there said "["Should we try again to just delete the article?"] - and it is important to note that this "request" was made after the question was already answered by the arbcom here, here and here. Of course the answer provided wasn't the one that Four Deuces and Co. wanted, so now we are presented with this instance of Forum shopping. Stick with what the arb com already said - no need to start of the New Year with ArbCom schizophrenia.
  • After a bit of discussion the relevant parties realized even without any EEML members (ex or otherwise) voting, they probably STILL would not suceeed in deleting the article (if they tried that would have made it the fourth AfD nomination in five months!). This isn't surprising since there've been at least two failed AfDs which saw no or very limited participation from anybody on the mailing list.
  • So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else. As such, this is just an attempt at putting one's (or actually, several) thumbs on the scales before the AfD can commence (and hopefully that AfD can be flown under the radar so that nobody except the right people show up). Yes, this is disruptive and bad faithed which is why I'm being frank about what's going on here.

Bottom line:

  1. Yes, Putinism and the Eastern Bloc emigration articles are covered by the topic bans. But no one ever thought otherwise.
  2. No, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism are not covered by the topic bans, as already stated by Coren and articulated by Flo Night and others. Yes, the topic bans are "broadly construed" but obviously there are limits to what "broad" means in this instance, otherwise these would've been site blocks not topic bans. In particular, "broad" does not mean "theyz banned from MAH articlz!"
  3. Yes, this is a bad faithed "request for clarification" as a) this question has already been asked and answered, b) it seeks to misrepresent the situation by mixing obvious cases with wrong cases in an attempt to 'sneak by' the ArbCom some articles with a view towards POV pushing on them and c) it aims to manipulate the consensus by anticipating the AfD process and through a pre-emptive exclusion of those who are expected to disagree.

As such (while personally I wouldn't mind seeing some slaps on the wrists to those involved in orchestrating this little charade) the proper course of action here is to AfD-ban the two articles in question (rather than those involved in orchestrating this little charade). Mass Killings should be put on a 6 month AfD restriction - seriously that many failed AfDs in such a short period of time sets some kind of a record, and the repeated re-listing of it at AfD is VERY disruptive to any improvement work that is attempted at the article (as even some "opponents" of the article, like Igny or Paul Sieber, recognize). So let the article breath. In similar vein, Communist terrorism should likewise be restricted from being AfDed in the same way that an edit warrior is still censured for edit warring when they move from one related article to another in order to avoid violating 3RR while carrying on the fight.

Bit of clarity here, please.

radek (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve

Oy, Steve, I realize that it is very difficult to get someone to change their mind, especially once they set out their original position in writing, in the full view of the public. So please keep in mind that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes has said that changin' ones mind is often the right thing to do [26].

Unfortunately I get the sense that you're relying on users' statements here rather than looking at the actual articles themselves. Communist_terrorism has hardly anything in it about Eastern Europe aside from a mention of the Soviet Union in the lede (which statement should probably be removed anyway - and of course a statement about the Soviet Union can be inserted into almost any article. Those Soviets, they got around you know). The article is instead about organizations in Peru, Columbia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Greece (not EE), Basque region, United States, Germany, Nepal, and India. Not Eastern Europe. Yes, there is a section about general "Marxism" and "Leninism" but please see FayssalF's clarifications on the arb com pages [27] where he answers to a similar question with "No. We are talking about a global ideology.". And anyway, I think everyone under the topic ban has a pretty clear idea that if a section has anything to do with Soviets or something similar it's off limits.

Likewise, the mass killings article is to a good extent about Cambodia and China. Yes, there is a good chunk about Soviet Union, but again, it's not a problem for anyone to avoid that section, to continue participating in talk page discussions as to the viability of the article as whole - in particular since most of the ongoing controversy is centered around Valentino's work which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe.

For myself, I'm staying away from that article just for the sake of my own sanity. But these kinds of cheap tricks that are being tried here are pretty noxious.radek (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Framing effect.radek (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, thanks for the clarifications. I still disagree but I appreciate you taking the time to carefully consider the question.radek (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to csloat

My belief that you are not acting in good faith is simply the result of your (voluntary) participation in the ArbCom case. There's nothing incredible about this, given the comments and the attacks you made during the case. It is reasonable and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to assume good faith in regard to editors one hasn't encountered much before. It is unreasonable and in fact not required by Wikipedia guidelines to continue assuming something which has been demonstrated to be false by a user and his actions.

Please note that you share roughly the same position in regards to these two articles, and possibly other issues, with editors such as Igny, Fifelfoo and Paul Siebert, and I have no problem assuming good faith on their part - they have never given me a reason to believe otherwise. You have. So it's not your POV that causes me to assume bad faith on your part, but the way you have acted in promotion of this POV.

The article on Communist Terrorism was never discussed on the list, AFAIK. There was no "EEML disruption" on it. I had no idea that you voted to AfD in 2008, despite the fact that it is very well sourced, but that doesn't surprise me. MKUCR, back when it was Communist Genocide, was mentioned (in fact people disagreed on it) but it's been such a lightning rod and such a highly visible article that pretty much anyone who's voted on its AfDs or took part in discussion on it did so of their own volition and would have done so regardless.

And there's no "ideological agenda" here - either by me or by people who were on the list - except to ensure that reliable sources are used, fringe theories and authors are treated as such and that folks who actually DO HAVE an ideological agenda don't go around trying to sneak through article deletions based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds.radek (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Csloat, I am not violating the AGF guideline (not policy). The guideline simply doesn't state what you think it states. In particular the guideline is clear about the fact that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." I think your actions and comments in the past definitely fall within this provision (without which, this'd be a really dumb policy as it's impossible to require people to assume something that they know not to be true).

And what makes this "controversial" is that previous statements by some of the ArbCom members indicated that these articles would not be covered by the topic ban - hence, this being an instance of forum shopping.radek (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

The restriction was clearly formulated as anything about Eastern Europe. Any sections about Eastern Europe in articles like "Mass killings" are obviously covered. Any sections about China (or whatever is not Eastern Europe) are not covered, obviously. If you said: "anything related to Eastern Europe", then one could not contribute even in articles about Jack London because he was the most popular American writer in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since you are talking about Communist terrorism, here is the diff between my last edit and the current version. Obviously, a lot of materials about terrorism by the communist states and organizations have been removed, even though they were sourced to books by notable historians. Is it better now? That is what you are going to achieve with sanctions. And you will not even notice anything in many other articles because you do not edit Russian history.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that all specific articles mentioned by Steve fall under the topic ban restriction (and some of them are garbage), an arbitrary interpretation of the sanctions allows blocking the editors for almost anything. If that is what you want, then fine.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Commodore Sloat

Umm, this is weird. I am only commenting here because I have been named by Radek (talk · contribs) in a most inappropriate way. He says "So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else." This is an example of the incredible amount of bad faith assumptions that EEML members continue to bring to Wikipedia discussions. I am not a party to most of the discussions that the EEML people were found to have disrupted; the discussions on communist terrorism and mass killings under Communist regimes, and their surrounding AfD debates, were the exception. However what I saw on the arbcom list was truly appalling. The fact that they appear to continue wikilawyering even after sanctions from arbcom is alarming. In any case, I did not "come up with the bright idea" of AfDing Communist terrorism in order to "game the system." I originally voted to AfD communist terrorism back in 2008, and I pointed out that this article raised the same issues. Radek surely knows this as the point was obvious in my comments; his blatant distortion of my comments here is troubling.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that people are focused on clarifying the topic area "eastern europe" without reference to the history of these articles. The question shouldn't be "is 'eastern europe' covered geographically by articles about 'communist terrorism'?" but rather, "does this article fall within the rubric of articles that the EEML has chosen to disrupt?" In this case, both articles should clearly be covered by the ruling because both articles not only fall within the ideological agenda these editors single-mindedly pursued in violation of Wikipedia rules, but in fact these were articles they actually did collaborate to disrupt in a demonstrable way, at least during the AfD process. csloat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response to responders

Unbelievable. I would think that users who have been sanctioned by ArbCom would make it a point to follow Wikipedia policies to a T rather than continue to flout their abuse of those policies. Both Radek and Martintg blatantly violate WP:AGF, with Radek even stating boldly (and without any rationale) that he will always and only assume BAD faith when dealing with me. He claims this assumption started when the EEML case started, but anyone familiar with the evidence (e.g. 20090821-0105) can see clearly that is a blatantly false statement. Martintg absurdly calls me "pro-Communist" when I have said nothing of the sort. If you want to pigeonhole me for my participation on these particular articles, my stance would be "anti-synthesis violations" or, simply, "pro-Wikipedia." I have never claimed to be "pro-communist" and only an absolute refusal to read my actual arguments would lead to such a conclusion. Both martin and radek are likewise distorting my claim above about the Communist terrorism article. The fact is that I participated in AfD in 2008 on this article because it was a hotbed of WP:SYN violations and WP:FRINGE theories elevated to the status of fact. The vote was indecisive primarily because of significant collaboration by members of the EEML, whether or not it was actually discussed on list (we don't know, since the archive doesn't go back that far). But we do know that the Communist genocide article suffered the same fate from many of the same players, and that there was a "call to arms" published and discussed on the EEML list (see 20090806-526 for example) on the communist genocide AfD; there was a similar call to arms on related articles on nuclear terrorism where at the time there was a discussion of some other WP:SYN violations created by another EEML member. (see 20090817-1427). This was all spelled out by multiple commenters on the evidence page of the arbcom case. I also think these guys misunderstand my point completely -- nobody is calling for further sanctions here; the point is just that the sanctions we do have should be interpreted broadly as Arbcom explicitly called for, and that articles where the EEML members have shown themselves likely to engage in objectionable off-wiki coordination should definitely be covered by the sanctions. I don't see how this is even a controversial point here. csloat (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting more statements, and noting that two of the parties listed are currently serving bans. I would ask them to e-mail ArbCom, but a period of disengagement from Wikipedia may be better, and they can bring themselves up-to-date on how the topic bans work out in practice when their bans expire and other conditions associated with their bans are met. Of the other parties listed, five have yet to comment, as of the time of writing this comment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may be premature. Can we have a list of any arbitration enforcement threads that have been filed since the case closed? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse due to prior involvement. Shell babelfish 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my view that a wide construction of the ban's scope, as prescribed in the remedies, would include all of the articles mentioned (and especially Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection—I cannot fathom an argument that those are not related to Eastern Europe). The purpose of prescribing a broad construction of the ban in the first place is to avoid situations like this. Steve Smith (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acknowledging Radek's comments, and affirming that the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection in the request did not affect my views on Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism. Both of those articles, as Fifelfoo notes, have substantial chunks devoted to Eastern Europe, and many other portions of both articles can be linked to eastern Europe as being in some ways offshoots of the cold war (though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken). There is a case to be made that the articles (or at least significant enough portions of them) are not eastern Europe-related. But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, and in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy, I find the latter case more persuasive. While I thank Radek for providing the link to Coren's earlier answer of this question (I was not hitherto aware of it, having somehow missed Martin's link), that answer was provided on the talk page of an individual arbitrator, and all I can say is that I disagree with Coren's answer there. As for the proposed "AFD-bans", those are outside of the scope of a request for clarification, and I don't see the need for ArbCom intervention on those subjects for the moment. Steve Smith (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A few scattered points in response to Radek: first, I can assure you that if you watch all arbitration pages, you will see me change my mind at least once before the end of February; I'm very unreluctant to do so. Second, I don't see how you can say that Communist terrorism has little Russia-related content: the single largest section deals almost entirely with Russian communists. Third, I acknowledge that both articles have substantial chunks unrelated (at least on the surface) to eastern Europe, but a broadly construed topic ban means that the editors subject to it should not be poking around the edges of the topic, which editing non-eastern Europe sections of an article having substantial eastern Europe content qualifies. Fourth, it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere, because that's created confusion. This page is where we clarify things. Fifth, the topic-banned editors appear to have been operating in good faith; we're not talking about sanctioning them, we're just talking about clarifying the ban's scope so parties know what will be considered sanctionable in the future. Fifth, after a review of the articles' histories and related discussions, I am as suspicious as you are about the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection. If they were included in an attempt to affect arbitrators' perceptions on the other two articles—and it looks very much as though they were—The Four Deuces is advised to knock it off. Steve Smith (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broadly agree with Steve - these articles clearly fall within the broad scope specified within the case. In general, my advice would be that if you feel an article is pushing the limits of the ban definition, then it is probably included in the scope of that ban. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that this is exactly what I meant by "they hover close", and that Steve Smith is correct that my own opinion is exactly that: my own opinion of the interpretation of the remedy and not a statement from the committee. Fritzpoll's advice seems sound: play it safe by staying away if there is a genuine question. — Coren (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadly concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best way to handle topic bans is to think "Will anyone credibly think, no matter how mistaken, that editing this article will fall under the topic restriction?" And if the answer is not an immediate, unequivocal "No".. don't do it SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Steve. KnightLago (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree as well. These are unquestionably covered by the topic ban. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, agree with Steve here. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues' comments. I would add that in voting on the remedies in the case, I favored substantially narrower topic bans than voted by the majority, but several of these articles would have been covered even under my proposed language. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Biruitorul Talk at 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Biruitorul

Do the topic bans handed out here cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, this guy, with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted BLPs no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was written by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - Biruitorul Talk 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martintg

Carcharoth laments "There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this", well there isn't. Most of EE is obscure to the majority of Wikipedians and they simply don't care to the point that sneaky vandalism goes undetected. There is only a small number who do care enough, but you topic banned most of them, the majority with 99.9% good contributions. And if something as simple as vandalism goes unattended, then certainly something more complex like content creation and expansion will be even more so neglected for 12 months while these editors serve out their topic bans. A 12 month ban on participating in AfDs or move discussions given the FoF on canvassing and a 12 month 0RR restriction to cover the co-ordinated edit warring would have been sufficient. The current broad topic bans are both punitive and damaging to the project, there were no FoF in regard to inappropriate content creation or vandalism. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kotniski

Any uncontroversial edits (reverting vandalism at the very least) should be exempt from topic bans. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not run a penal system, and it is a very well-established principle that rules (which I hope includes ArbCom decisions) can be ignored if they stop you from improving Wikipedia. This should be made clear by ArbCom and the community in all the appropriate places, to avoid the need for this sort of question to be asked.--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I fully agree with Martin's comment above. I hope this year's ArbCom will see, where last year's so often failed to see, that "remedies" ought to be targeted specifically at the problems identified.--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Most editing policies and restrictions inherently include an exception for obvious vandalism, blatant BLP violations, and clear cut copyright violations. I would be surprised and disappointed if edit warring rules, editing restrictions, or other boundaries resulted in sanctions for reverting such edits. Vassyana (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recall an earlier clarification on a different case that seemed to contradict what Vassyana is saying, but I can't recall whether it applied to topic bans or site bans. Generally, keeping articles watchlisted that you have previously created and edited in a topic area you are later banned from can be a problem, especially if the articles are obscure. But here they weren't obscure. I fear this is more a case of people believing the edit summary ("name corection") made by the IP editor - most normal vandalism would have been reverted, and hence the problem would not arise. If you are the first to notice, you should correct vandalism on BLPs, but fundamentally, the Wikipedia system cannot work if such watchlisting relies on one editor only. There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this, allowing topic bans to operate effectively. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martin, if you can gather evidence that the broadness of the topic bans is having a deleterious effect on content, please do so, but that will require more than one or two examples. What would then happen would depend on what exactly the effect of the topic bans has been. Maybe ask for a three- or six-month review at some point, and present your evidence then? If clear vandalism and BLP edits are building up without reversion, revert them and come back sooner, but give some time for others to do the reversions. Maybe what is needed here is for topic-banned users to provide lists of articles for others to watchlist? Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will not be commenting due to prior involvement with case. Shell babelfish 11:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vassyana is correct, those are standard exceptions unless otherwise stated, but be smart about, save yourself the potential trouble and report to the appropriate forum. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Rlevse in all respects. Steve Smith (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree with Rlevse. KnightLago (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rlevse sums it up nicely. SirFozzie (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, as what Rlevse said. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the above, just use caution. If it could reasonably be seen as a constructive edit, ask about it on a noticeboard. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reasonable administrator would block a user for reverting obvious vandalism, but caveat that obviousness is the eye of the beholder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=338706950"