Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
NE Ent makes a point
Line 67: Line 67:
If a redirect exists and Gerda turns it into an article, is she free to add an infobox to that? Is that a creation or an expansion? I would generally consider the person who turns a redirect into an article to be the article's creator, although the software doesn't recognize them as such. While this may seem like a silly question, it might be good to have some clarification for this, since these grey areas inevitably come up in disputed areas. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
If a redirect exists and Gerda turns it into an article, is she free to add an infobox to that? Is that a creation or an expansion? I would generally consider the person who turns a redirect into an article to be the article's creator, although the software doesn't recognize them as such. While this may seem like a silly question, it might be good to have some clarification for this, since these grey areas inevitably come up in disputed areas. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


==Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent==
I have made you a template:
{{tmbox
|small = {{{small|}}}
|image = [[Image:Commons-emblem-hand-orange.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30px|40px}}]]
|text = '''Unclean! Unclean! Unclean!''' [[User:Gerda Arendt]] has touched this page. Any editor adding a -- ''gasp'' --[[wp:infobox| infobox]] will be subject to wiki-torture and sanctions by ''The Committee''
}}
The concept "on their behalf even if not requested" sounds good in pixels, but it's one of those things that in the long term tends to prolong, rather than bring to an end, a dispute. The NE Ent created [[Charlie Morgan]] has no infobox yet [[Carly Foulkes]] does. Who knows if I like infoboxes or not? If I edit an article Gerda has touched, am I doing it on my own volition or 'cause I like Gerda? That type of statement -- "even if not requested" -- thrusts AE admins into the untenable position of having to be mind readers to effectivity perform the task they've volunteered for.
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->


Revision as of 02:09, 15 October 2013

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Infoboxes none (orig. case) 12 October 2013
Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent none none 12 October 2013
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Ayn Rand|Clarification request: Ayn Rand]] none (orig. case) 11 October 2013

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

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

Clarification request: Infoboxes

Initiated by uninvolved Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) at 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Infoboxes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted

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

Statement by Anthonyhcole

In expanding Quattro pezzi sacri from a stub, Gerda added an infobox.[1] Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda.[2] Is Gerda permitted to add infoboxes to articles she significantly expands? In cases where she is not permitted to add infoboxes is it OK for Neutralhomer to add them on her behalf? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutralhomer

As I said on the ANI thread, if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and I feel uncontroversial. I also feel that an infobox is, in certain cases, a necessary addition to an article. My personal opinion is that a restriction put on one our more established and well-respected editors is silly and prevents her from editing and updating articles.

So, I ask that I be allowed to add infoboxes for Gerda. This way, articles are updated and expanded, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. I don't think this is an unfair request as it would help only the community and help create and expand articles, which is why we are all here (though I think some of us forget that sometimes).

I completely expect that this request will be shot down, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy. If ArbCom rules against this request, I will not fight it and will, albeit reluctantly, go with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda Arendt

  • I am under a restriction to only add infoboxes to new articles that I create. Being a DYK person, I believe expanding a stub more than 5* qualifies as new article creation, which is not equal to page creation. As this view was questioned, I asked others involved, Newyorkbrad and Mackensen. I ask you.
  • I have not requested anybody to add an infobox on my behalf, nor will I. Neutralhomer and others who volunteered to do so (some per e-mail) are of course free to do it anyway, in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thank you, Neutralhomer, for describing well above, what you and I are here for!
  • If the restriction was indeed as narrow as some interpret it, I would question that it is valid at all. It would cement ownership of articles, no? You "create" a one-line stub and have it "protected" from an infobox for ever? - If that is the thinking, I should create a few one-line stubs with an infobox.
  • I would have loved to celebrate Verdi's birthday by adding an infobox to his article and all his operas, because I think that would have been a good service to our readers. Under the restriction, I didn't even think of an identitybox, the compromise found for L'Arianna. Instead, I at least brought the venerable maestro pictured on the Main page and am quite proud of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning again. I need to understand more, language or intentions or both. The latest Signpost review quoted Worm That Turned: "The decision to include an infobox in an article is a content decision". Guided by that statement, I read my restriction as: I can make this content decision for an infobox where I created the content. It made sense.

Now I am told that this is not true. Even if I created 99% of the content of an article, I didn't "create" the article. Then who did that? Who created the present state of BWV 49? Who can make that content decision for an infobox? Does the decision rest on the arbitrary fact that someone else thought first of creating a stub (then no) or not (then yes)? That does not make sense. - If it is important to leave the decision for or against an infobox with the content creator (as I read much of the discussion during the case), please find a way to make that real, not only for those who are against an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: You mention an article in question, but I don't know which one you mean. As explained above, I did not intend to breach the restriction. What I added to these articles made me their principal author and the addition of an infobox uncontentious. I can in the future avoid it for expanded articles, even if it doesn't make sense. - Please don't misunderstand what I said about Verdi. "I would have loved" doesn't mean I would have done it, even unrestricted. Remember, I left project opera. I still would have loved it ;) Te Deum laudamus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final statement: I will obey the restrictions in the narrow sense of "article they create" pointed out here from now on even if they don't make sense and go against my quality standards. I love opera. We celebrate Verdi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: "see also", written to Smerus 22 August 2013 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

I would have thought the concept of "creating an article" is pretty clear-cut. If an article already exists, then you can't create it. Any messing around with the interpretation of this restriction is likely to cause problems. This seems like a breaching experiment to me. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it goes without saying that an editor acting as proxy for another to allow them to evade restrictions is totally unacceptable. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update (FWIW) It's very easy to find out which articles you have created. You just go to your "Contributions" page, look at the bottom, click "Articles created" and you will get a list. Those are the pages encompassed under the heading "[they may ]include infoboxes in new articles which they create."
Here is a list of articles created by Gerda Arendt [3]. --Folantin (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

I won't opine as to whether it would be a good or bad thing to relax Gerda's restriction with respect to significant expansion of an article, but article expansion is unquestionably not article creation. In either case, Neutralhomer should not be offering to act as a proxy to circumvent anyone's restriction. Especially in an area where doing so could reignite this little war. Resolute 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC) @Smeat - Montanabw's assertion is not correct. DYK allows two types of content: New (provided it meets minimum thresholds) and expanded (provided it meets an entirely different set of thresholds). But they are not the same thing, and she's engaging in false equivalency. Resolute 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Smeat75

Another editor has left this comment on Gerda's talk page [4] "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation. This is a distinction without a difference." May I request clarification if this is correct? In other words, is bringing an article to "DYK standard" the "equivalent to new article creation" in terms of the restrictions?. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Ruhrfisch

The original proposal by ArbCom did not include allowing Gerda to add infoboxes to anything, then Roger Davies added the exemption that she could "include infoboxes in new articles which they [sic] create". Roger mentioned this phrase was added after Gerda posted on his talk page. On his talk page he wrote to Gerda "On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial." diff. I think the phrases "new articles which they create" and "brand new articles" make his intention clear - expansion is not creation, nor is an expanded article "brand new". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider turning a redirect into an article to be article creation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Mark Arsten

If a redirect exists and Gerda turns it into an article, is she free to add an infobox to that? Is that a creation or an expansion? I would generally consider the person who turns a redirect into an article to be the article's creator, although the software doesn't recognize them as such. While this may seem like a silly question, it might be good to have some clarification for this, since these grey areas inevitably come up in disputed areas. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent

I have made you a template:

The concept "on their behalf even if not requested" sounds good in pixels, but it's one of those things that in the long term tends to prolong, rather than bring to an end, a dispute. The NE Ent created Charlie Morgan has no infobox yet Carly Foulkes does. Who knows if I like infoboxes or not? If I edit an article Gerda has touched, am I doing it on my own volition or 'cause I like Gerda? That type of statement -- "even if not requested" -- thrusts AE admins into the untenable position of having to be mind readers to effectivity perform the task they've volunteered for.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse from this and all future requests involving this case. --Rschen7754 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Gerda can add infoboxes to articles she creates, but not to articles she expands. When any user is restricted or banned, then they may not get others to edit for them, nor may others act on their behalf even if not requested. For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo SilkTork's comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the argument is going to be made (as it has been above) that those mostly responsible for the content of an article also take the decisions about infoboxes, then that works both ways. If a stub has an infobox and is expanded by someone else, then arguably that person who is responsible for most of the content can take a decision to remove the infobox. And those who have never edited an article shouldn't turn up and add an infobox without discussion first. But that is not how things work around here. The way things really work is that in the first instance, anyone can add or remove infoboxes, but if an infobox is disputed, then (as in all content disputes) it needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. The restrictions on adding or removing infoboxes are not because the articles should or shouldn't have infoboxes, but because the editors given those restrictions have demonstrated poor judgement over the amount of discussion needed (both too little and too much) and how to carry out those discussions.

    As for redirects, it depends on the editing history. If it was created as a redirect and was never an article, then turning it into an article would be creating an article. If it was an an article at some point before it was redirected, then you may need to consider things some more. This is why the 'articles created' link isn't always accurate. If someone turns a redirect you created into an article, you are credited as the creator when you are not. An example of this sort of thing from my own editing history is Lady Franklin Bay Expedition. See also Category:Redirects with possibilities. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, by adding the infobox to the article in question, Gerda did, IMO, breach her sanction. I wouldn't be adverse to at some future point relaxing the restriction to allow Gerda to add infoboxes to articles she has expanded for DYK, but the comment about adding infoboxes to 'celebrate Verdi's birthday' doesn't convince me that this point has been reached yet. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agreed with SilkTork. I would deny this request to proxy for Gerda. AGK [•] 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark, it's actually a good question. In my view, 'create' refers to the process of writing the first substantive revision of an article, not the technical process of setting up a page redirect. For example, if Gerda wrote a few paragraphs, and used them to create an article (simultaneously overriding an existing redirect to a larger article), Gerda would for our purposes have 'created' the article even if the page already existed as a redirect. AGK [•] 20:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd concur with SilkTork and AGK. Gerda did breach her restriction here. Gerda, my comment which was quoted in the signpost was my opinion on the general case, with a view to improving infobox discussions in the future. In your specific case, you have been given a restriction which takes precedent. If you do not create the article (including creation from a redirect per AGK), then you may not add an infobox. WormTT(talk) 07:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Ayn Rand

Initiated by v/r - TP at 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Ayn Rand arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision

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


Statement by TParis

I am filing a case about an administrator editing through protection on an article with Arbcom sanctions without consensus.

Timeline:

  • At this point, two edit wars break out:
  1. Whether or not to call Ayn Rand Russian-American or just American: [6][7][8][9][10][11]
  2. Whether or not to say Ayn Rand founded Objectivism or if it's implied: [12][13][14][15]


  • 00:51 11 October 2013 I fully-protected the article due to edit warring
  • 01:02 11 October 2013 I placed the article under a 1 revert rule and created an edit notice
  • 12:39 11 October 2013 Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) makes an edit that again changes that section, this time specifying Russian-born American, and claiming to be carrying out the consensus of the RFC. However, the RFC was not about Russian American or American. It was about qualifiers before 'philosopher'.
  • 14:06 11 October 2013 I bring it to Jreferee's attention that this was an Arbitration action, and this article is under discretionary sanctions and urge him to self revert. I also suggest that he may not of known he was contributing to the edit war.
  • 16:07 11 October 2013 Jreferee declines to self revert asking to discuss it on the talk page instead.

As you can see on the talk page, Jreferee is again being asked to self revert. Unfortunately, Jreferee has continued the edit war, used admin tools to edit through full protection, and will not revert despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. According to this motion, upon being warned that this protection was due to Arbcom sanctions, Jreferee should've reverted himself.

--v/r - TP 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Using admin tools to violate discretionary sanctions is an issue for Arbcom, not AE Admins. AE Admins do not posses the full range of options to vet this issue.--v/r - TP 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jreferee has self-reverted, this can be closed.--v/r - TP 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jreferee: Please notify me if you do indeed make an statement concerning an action I've taken. At this point, as you've self-reverted, I believe that settles this matter. Since I believe I followed policy to the letter, I have no idea what particular action you dispute (maybe the 1RR/week rule but that's not connected to this dispute that I know of). So after your statement explaining yourself, if you do make one, this matter is wrapped up.--v/r - TP 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing Jreferee's concerns

Edit wars can happen over days, not just minutes or hours. That no edit has been made in 5 hours could simply mean that an editor is currently asleep or at their place of employment and has not had a chance to see that their previous edit was reverted and revert again. This article just came off a full protection for edit warring, there is no reason to doubt that those same editors were not warring again. In addition, this article is under discretionary sanctions, which means that we treat edit wars much more harshly and strictly. The edit where you say I claimed that you consistently make these mistakes, you've taken out of context. It is in fact the motion linked on WP:AE, on the bullet starting "In March 2013, the Arbitration Committee..." and is described as the motion requiring that admins not undo Arbitration actions, in explicitly or in substance, without Arbcom's authority or community consensus. You had neither and your action undoes my full protection in substance because you've subverted it. The notification that this was an Arbitration action should've been evident when I said I'd bring it to WP:AE, but if that were not enough than you should've been aware that the article was under discretionary sanctions either by the edit notice I placed on the article 7 hours before your edit or the "This article and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions" warning on the talk page. Despite all of that, the article was fully protected. The giant red notice on top of the edit box told you it was fully protected. WP:PROTECT says, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." If you felt that my full protection was rash, you should've come to talk to me about it. Your entire defense is a non sequitur to that.

If you don't understand that what you've done is against several policies as I've outlined in very clear detail, then perhaps this case needs to remain open.--v/r - TP 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jreferee

I am working on my statement and will post it shortly. TParis's actions need reviewing and, in fairness, I would like to have my statement on record in this discussion before it is closed. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my actions

Regarding my actions, the closed AN/RFC post[16] drew me to the Ayn Rand article. (I had never edited the Ayn Rand before). The RFC issue - "consensus was to exclude the use of qualifiers for the descriptor "philosopher" in the lead" had already been closed and addressed three days prior, with all page protection removed.[17]

At the time of my edit, the page had received full page protection with a 1 revert rule. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary or on the article talk page. I edited the article as an editor implementing WP:LEAD.

The edit I made to the lead that has been cited as raising concern up to where I reverted my edit[18] is my changing the lead from reading (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American article in the lead of the protected article. I revised the lead per WP:LEAD to read "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" text word "Russia" continuing to link to the Russian American article. I though that novelist, playwright, and screenwriter could be covered by the one word "writer" and the remainder of the lead used to characterize the forms of writing she did. I saw "Born in Russia" and "Russian-born" to mean one and the same. When I posted the "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" edit, I saw the change itself as factual, uncontroversial, and having clear consensus via the language in the lead itself. I used the language in the protected article to make the change. I did not think I was taking sides on any issue or of any issue of which I was aware and believed that my edit was consistent with the page protection. User:I JethroBT's subsequent post[19] suggested that my edit may not have contributed towards encouraging consensus-building with interested editors. On reflection, I realized that my edit subsequently gave an appearance of unfairness that could have affected consensus-building with interested editors. I am sorry for giving an appearance of unfairness and will try to do work harder to prevent this.

Regarding TParis's actions

The Russian American disagreement by four editors (two on each side) leading to the full page protection with a 1 revert rule was whether the hyphenated Russian-American should be removed from the article. Michipedian's notes that the first sentence of this article did say "Russian-American" for a very long time and someone removed it.[20] Medeis added the Russian-American text back into the article 21:49, 8 October 2013 Ten minutes later, Yworo changed the article to remove the visible Russian-American text and move the Russian-American hidden link[21]21:58, 8 October 2013, noting "here's a better place to link Russian American." Five edits made to the article and about two days later, Michipedian maintained Yworo's edit and added the linked text Russian-American.06:10, 10 October 2013 FreeKnowledgeCreator then removed the Russian-American text but was fine with "Born and educated in Russia" and its link to the Russian American article mentioned just a few sentences later in the lead paragraph. 06:40, 10 October 2013 Michipedian then re-added the Russian-American text.12:53, 10 October 2013 Three edits made to the article and eight hours later, Yworo removed the Russian-American text.20:32, 10 October 2013

About five hours after the last of seven edits made over two days by four editors regarding the Russian-American issue, TParis change the article protection from unprotected to fully protected with a 1-revert rule so that it linked to Russian American and read "Born and educated in Russia" and "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" in the lead of the article. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary, the edit notice, or on the article talk page. TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed.

The above seven edits over two days by four editors is what TParis subsequently characterized as an edit war regarding specific Russian-American verbiage[22] for which fully protected the article with a 1-revert rule the only administrative recourse available. TParis has not commented on or provided any diffs of where he blocked or warned any involved editors before the full page protection with 1-revert rule. Of the 10,449 edits to the article, the four editors involved in the disagreement were Yworo, with 10 total edits to the article, and FreeKnowledgeCreator, with 5 total edits to the article (two favoring removing the hyphenated Russian-American text from the article) and Medeis with 12 total edits to the article, and Michipedian with 3 total edits to the article (two favored retaining the hyphenated Russian-American text in the article). There was no dispute over the article lead containing (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American.

After I made the edit to the article, TParis coercively indicated on my talk page that I needed to either revert my one edit regarding the specific Russian American verbiage ("Russian-born American writer and philosopher") or he would take the matter to WP:AE, and failed to provide enough information in which to make a decision.[23] TParis posts at AN, linking to [24] to claim that my one edit is evidence of consistently making questionable enforcement administrative actions.[25] TParis claims above that this post informed me that his fully protecting the article with a 1-revert rule was somehow an Arbitration action.

This AN request resulted in me looking into the matter. I ask AN to determine at least:
(1) whether these events and this AN request were the result of an overreaction by admin TParis to seven edits over two days by four editors new to the article looking to become interested editors in the article.
(2) Whether TParis overreacted when he fully protected the article with a one revert rule to protect it against any rearrangement of the lead with regard to the "Russia" term.
(3) Whether TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed to favor recent content.
(4) Whether TParis failed to sufficiently explain his full page protection/1 edit revert action to those looking to edit the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query from NE Ent

Why here instead of WP:AE?

Statement by Thryduulf (re Ayn Rand)

Contrary to Risker's statement below, the about-to-pass resolution to the Manning case means that it is now fine for an admin to edit through protection if they disagree that the reason the protection applies to their actions has been explicitly given. This is independent of whether other users, including the protecting administrator, consider the explanation sufficient, relevant or understandable. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision#Tariqabjotu's move.

I know this seems absurd, but it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that case and I present it here to demonstrate that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: I don't think it is acceptable at all, but I am merely applying the rules (which I explicitly disagree with) you (the arbitrators collectively) have established in the Manning case.
Here you are drawing a frankly ridiculous distinction between:
  • making changes to content through protection that prohibits changes to content which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do); and
  • making changes to the title through protection that prohibits changes to the title which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do).
In the manning case you (personally) are endorsing the characterisation as simply "not ideal" any administrator ignoring protection when they do not agree that the reason protection was applied has been adequately explained. Whether the edit was requested by another user is irrelevant - the person performing the action takes responsibility for that action (as has been upheld many, many times by ArbCom). Tariq has never denied knowing the page was move protected, probably because trying to move a move protected page displays a prominent warning about the protection.
If it is acceptable for one administrator to perform an action in these circumstances but not acceptable for different administrator to perform an action in the same circumstances then we might as well not have any rules of admin conduct at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RL0919

Although he has not made a statement here or otherwise commented on it, Jreferee has now self-reverted the edit, so this case may now be moot. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The reason it's here instead of AE is that AE cannot remove an administrator's bit. Editing through protection is an extremely serious matter; it confounds the community's ability to formulate consensus when any administrator can impose their personal viewpoint into an article. The edit summary in particular concerns me ("Lead to this article from an AN request. Tweaked lead, revised redundant information, and focused more on important aspects highlighted by article section headings"), as it is clearly taking a position on the content of the matter, rather than the result of the RFC, which is what the report at WP:AN referred to. Jreferee, please revert yourself. Risker (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf, I'm not going to relitigate the Manning naming dispute case here, although there is a big difference between an admin responding to a move request through *move* protection and an admin making major content changes through *full* protection. Jreferee made major content changes to this article, editing through protection, which administrators are warned not to do without obtaining consensus; when they click "edit", the editing window is coloured instead of the usual white, and there is a notice above. The same is not true for changes to titles through move protection. So let's stick to the facts when discussing this situation: based on policy, why you think it is acceptable for Jreferee to rewrite an entire section of this article whilst it is under protection? Risker (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thryduulf, I'm going to ask that this section be closed within 24 hours, so if you don't see this response, I am sorry. I do not excuse anyone's behaviour on the other case, nor do I excuse Jreferee's behaviour here. That he considers himself acting as "an editor" when editing through protection for *any* reason is an error in judgment. When full protection is on an article, NOBODY should be editing it "as an editor". Only edits that have reached consensus on the talk page should be made until the protection is lifted (with very very limited exceptions), and then by a neutral administrator. No MOS changes, no date changes, no adding or removing categories, or other supposedly minor changes, all of which are issues that have led to full protection in the past. If there was agreement on the talk page for the changes that Jreferee made, then an uninvolved administrator could have applied those changes. Administrators should know as soon as they see the pink screen that *any* edit (except for a clear BLP violation) needs to be discussed. I might go for fixing an obvious typo, but I've also seen cases where the edit war is directly related to the "correct" spelling of the supposed typo, so caution should be taken there. Risker (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Jreferee has self-reverted, I don't think we need to take this matter further. People make mistakes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conduct described in this request is subpar in several respects, but Jreferee has reverted his changes. I would strongly counsel him not to make the same mistake again (it is unlikely the committee would excuse a second offence), and would recommend the rest of the article's editors return to business as usual. AGK [•] 20:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=577219773"