Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/4/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement Appeal Littleolive oil|Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement Appeal Littleolive oil]] | none | none | 20 October 2013 |
| Clarification request: Infoboxes | none | (orig. case) | 12 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!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement Appeal Littleolive oil
Initiated by olive (talk) at 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement:[1]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Seraphimblade notified here [2]
Statement by olive
In this AE [3] the majority of editors who posted including Sandstein said behavior did not rise to a sanctionable level, but Seraphimblade sanctioned me with a six-month topic ban anyway. When I appealed to SB on his talk page [4] he said he gave me the ban because he "saw a clear pattern where you [Olive] would refuse to engage or even acknowledge what was actually said, and instead would respond by slinging an accusation of wrongdoing or a veiled threat of sanctions". Per the rules for Discretionary Sanctions as outlined at TM Arbcom, I am asking the Committee to consider a reversal of that judgement.
There are five, short, pertinent talk page threads some of which Seraphimblade references on his talk page.They’re not long and I would be grateful if members of the Arb Committee would review the threads and form their own opinions as to whether Seraphimblade was accurate in his assessment of those discussions and if a topic ban was appropriate. Below is a short summary of each thread:
- Reference to and concern with deletion of this content, [5] and subsequent discussion in this thread [6] In this thread I point out that good writng style would indicate that we explain what we are criticizing before we criticize it, and that in this case the sources would be fine per WP. I attempt to compromise:
And if you think the content you deleted is too long I'm sure it can be tightened up and shortened. Not a problem.(olive (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC))
- [7] Again concern about mass deletion of content without consensus or agreement. Some of the edits seem to be fine, others not.
The standard I, and as far as I can tell, other editors involved in the TM arbitration have maintained was based on this comment:
From Will Beback:[8]
Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement. Will Beback talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The understanding I have of the TM Arbitration principle, as both something that falls under discretionary sanctions, and is good collaborative editing practice on a contentious article, is to discuss and get agreement before you make deletions, otherwise I'd assume the deletion could be considered peremptory. Based on this longstanding understanding, I warned IRWolfie. I have no problem with abandoning this standard if I’ve misunderstood.
- [9] Discussion on whether to include what is clearly inaccurate content, and how to deal with inaccurate content in a BLP.
- [10] Discussion as to whether the Kilby Award web page can be linked or used as a source for content mentioning the Kilby Award.
- [11] Again, concerns with mass deletion of content that included extensive copyediting by an uninvolved editor and some rearrangement of content by me.
Although I definitely became frustrated with Wolfie, my comments never rose to the level of anything sanctionable, and I feel that the action taken by SB was inappropriate. I am appealing to the Committee for their guidance. Many thanks for your time and thoughts on this.(olive (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC))
- About Montana: per Wolfie's comment on Montana and implied motive. There are editors I enjoy working with on Wikipedia, whom I respect, and who work in areas in which I have an interest. I've edited on articles Montana also worked on since September 2012, and probably before. A very few instances:
May/2013 [12]
April/2013 [13]
September/2012 [14]
- AGK and Risker. You both indicate there was clearly sanctionable misconduct. Could you clarify what the misconduct was. For example, Risker you suggest I interpreted some data, but there was no data used/ interpreted in any of those threads. And Thanks. Identifying what specific concerns the arbitrators have will help me going forward. (olive (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC))
- If its useful to explain concerns I have with this case I am happy to do so. However, whatever the outcome, I accept the final decision reached by the arbs and thank them for their time and input.(olive (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC))
Matscell's comments:
- What Mastcell said:
Olive defends the use of original research to "rebut" a news item published in Nature, because Olive is sure that Nature got it wrong.
- What I actually said. In reference to two sources (Woit and Anderson) with conflicting information.
We have a couple of choices here. We can remove the content and source that is clearly incorrect or we can fairly present both pieces of information. However, why we would deliberately and knowingly include content that is false is a question we should deal with as well.(olive (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC))
I did not add anything, did not edit war anything, and never suggested adding content in a way that would cositute OR. I opened a discussion on conflicting sources and how we use them. I also left the discussion to the other editors.
I added papers to the discussion for Wolfie to look at (Look at the papers published and note who Hagelin was collaborating with- his former peers including Ellis) so he could look at the authors and the dates the papers were published. I did not suggest adding them or using them in any way.
- What Mastcell said:
Olive supports using a website associated with a dubious award in preference to an article from Nature.
- What I actually said:
We self define the Kilby award nost accurately by looking at its website. We can define how others view that award by applying other RSs. Both in this case must be present. Finally, we can represent the award accurately either by removing any definitions of the award or if we want to continue to include explanations of the award as is in place now, we must per weight and NPOV include the content from the foundation site, since it is available, is verifiable, and which defines the award as the foundation defines it. I'm happy to do either one or the other, but the article and its content must be fair and neutral.(olive (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC))
I at no time suggested a preference of one source over another as an addition to the article. I was again in discussion about how to use two sources, and I again left the discussion when my opinion was not in agreement with other editors.
Wolfie's repetitive actions in deleting content is a concern especially when the final deletion was of hours of copy edit work put in the article by an uninvolved editor, and a simple reorganization. There was no reason given to revert that copy editing. It is both disappointing and frustrating when an uninvoled editor comes into articles where it is difficult to get neutral outside input, and is treated this way. But again I left the discussion to Wolfie and the uninvolved editor.
I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now. I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article.(olive)
Final comment: Whatever the reasons given for my sanction, and that changes at every turn, it is both unfair and wrong to say something happened when it didn't, and to use that false information to uphold a sanction. I don't want that for me. I value my growing ability to understand and apply policy. I also understand and value collaboration. For that reason I withdrew from all of the threaded discussions noted in this appeal when my position was not agreed on. If you are sanctioning editors for good faith discussion, even when they leave discussion because opinion is not agreed upon, then you have efftectively made it impossible for any editor to discuss anything on Wikipedia, and the talk page discussions will be controlled by those editors with the status, discussion style, and the connections to scare away less experienced editors. I don't want that for Wikipedia.
Statement by Seraphimblade
I believe that the AE thread, and the subsequent discussion I had with Olive at my talk page, sum up well why the topic ban was necessary. As Olive has already provided the diffs to those, and in the interest of keeping things brief, I'll try to summarize here. If it would be helpful to have a more detailed breakout with particular diffs, please let me know and I'll be happy to do that.
When IRWolfie brought the AE thread, there were a goodly number of diffs presented. No given one of these was a violation egregious enough to warrant sanction. There was no huge edit war, none of that type of thing we so frequently see at AE. What there was, and what had to be addressed, was a pattern of behavior in which Olive would refuse to address arguments brought up (i.e., tenaciously sticking to "it's referenced" rather than addressing concerns about weight, neutrality, etc., that had nothing to do with being unreferenced), and would cast aspersions and veiled threats ("...you are skating on the thinnest of ice...", calling another editor "unconscionable", accusing another editor of violating BLP without cause so far as I saw, and so on.)
This type of conduct is sand in the gears of a content discussion. If it were to have happened once, especially over the course of a long and sometimes frustrating discussion, certainly we all can be forgiven a bad day or mildly intemperate comment once in a while. But seeing this as a pattern, repeated time and again, edit after edit, is cause for concern and, I believe, cause for Olive to be required to step back from the topic area for some time. Being subjected to this type of hostile editing, even when the hostility is mild but persistent, is demoralizing to other editors involved in a discussion, may make other editors who would have wished to join the discussion reconsider their participation, and ultimately is not the type of conduct we should encourage or tolerate.
As far as administrative review of the situation at AE, Sandstein reviewed the situation but declined to take action; however, he explicitly stated that he did not object if someone else did decide action was warranted. CIreland, the other administrator involved in the review, agreed with my assessment. As I stated before, opinion was sharply polarized between the other editors who commented on the situation, but that is certainly and perhaps unfortunately not an uncommon situation at AE. Ultimately, I believe my decision was the best one possible to prevent disruptive behavior, and while I can't make everyone happy, I think it has had and will have that effect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Montanabw
I have no interest or involvement with the subject area where Olive and Wolfie tangled, so as to the minutae of the dispute I am neutral. But I was tracking this original dispute and provided evidence as to the pattern of editing and tendentious discussion that typifies IRWolfie, an editor with whom I have had numerous interactions. I believe that Olive remained calm and acted in good faith, while IRWolfie was throwing one of his usual tantrums when he doesn't get his way. From my own interactions with that editor, I know that one of his tactics is to simply wear people down by endless argument until they either throw up their hands and let him have his way, or they simply quit discussing the matter with him per WP:STICK. His consistent position across multiple WP articles is that pseudoscience is everywhere, his behavior implies that only he is the proper arbiter of what constitutes WP:RS, and he is a great practitioner of overuse of WP:MEDRS to the point of absurdity, yet, when it suits his own POV, he will argue with equal vehemence for unsupportable sources that he would dismiss out of hand if presented by others holding a different view. Olive, in my view, was a saint to be as patient as she was.
Seraphimblade discounted my comments and evidence before and is indirectly doing so again now. However, in this case, it is my firm belief that Olive is not the one at fault here in the least. On other topics where I have worked with her, I have found her to be a kind-hearted and good-natured editor with whom it is easy to collaborate; in contrast, it is near-impossible to collaborate with Wolfie on anything, as, to the best of my knowledge, he is uncompromising and seldom if ever admits that he could possibly be in error. Plus, as here, he has a tendency to viciously attack anyone who successfully calls him on his behavior.
In this case, Olive should not have been sanctioned, IRWolfie's complaint should have been dismissed, and per WP:BOOMERANG Wolfie should have been cautioned that his tactics, tone and attitude were interfering with a successful collaboration to improve an article. A topic ban on Olive, let alone one of six months, was overkill. Montanabw(talk) 18:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@All, I am glad to be a wiki-friend with Olive, who I have found to be a careful and thoughtful editor. I do ask her for help from time to time, as she is a calm, rational outside voice. Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Related to teh ad hominem attacks upon me by IR Wolfie (who is doing the same in his collapsed content below)
|
|---|
|
@All, IR Wolfie's comments below pretty much prove my case. This isn't about me or him, it's about Olive's unnecessary sanctions. Wolfie is pretty much just demonstrating his usual tantrum and deflecting attention from the real issue by attacks on others. I am not recommending any sanctions for Wolfie, save for above-mentioned trout slap, which is not going to happen anyway because no one ever holds Wolfie accountable. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @All, Wolfie's link to the stallion article really must be viewed in its entire context, where we were dealing with a VERY VERY VERY weird editor who was strongly warned by an admin. (Really, where were you then, Wolfie? We could have used your anti-pseudoscience viewpoint that time!) I decided that further discussion on the Animal-assisted therapy article was fruitless until I had the time and motivation to do an extensive research project, and so his version more or less stands. The edits on the other articles are pretty much irrelevant, as the issues were resolved to the more-or-less-satisfaction of all concerned. Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @All, again this is not about either Wolfie or myself, but if anyone is concerned, I must nonetheless note the nature of some other disputes where Olive and I landed on one side and Wolfie on the other: The Will Beback case Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Where Wolfie and I disagreed, but Olive was NOT involved:
Montanabw(talk) 23:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @IRWolfie, it appears we DID agree on something once once. Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC) @All, note that Wolfie is adding additional new attacks on me within his collapsed infobox spaces, which is absolutely typical of his ad hominem style of viciously attacking anyone with whom he disagrees. Carcharoth, doing my damnedest to stay above the fray here and stay on topic, but when the other editor is recommending sanctions against me for calling him on his own shit, I do need to respond, if briefly. Yep, damn right Olive is a good editor who I like and Wolfie a person about whom my feelings are more the opposite. But I believe the feeling is mutual, all around. Montanabw(talk) 03:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
And in conclusion to all of the above, I am not advocating for any formal sanction against IRWolfie, I am merely pointing out that his behavior is consistent across many articles, and this is regardless of whether Olive or me are involved. For that reason, and all others above, I think the source of this dispute was a major factor in escalating the situation and that Olive's topic ban should be lifted.
@ Carcharoth , per your request, as I was not at all involved in the actual edits, my first concern is that in the AE Seraphimblade attributes several things to Olive that were actually said by others, which was pointed out at the original AE, but seems to have been overlooked in a rush to judgement. Olive made minor errors, like calling an editor an “admin’ when they weren’t an admin, but this was held against her. It just seems that because she had been viewed as the problem in the past, she was assumed to be the problem now, and the behavior of the other editor involved was not examined in the least. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at some article edits, some things jump out at me:
- [15], Olive makes a reasonable case and is treated with condescension and rudeness
- here, Olive points out, politely, that the other editor is not understanding the TM area guidelines.
- here, Olive raises a legitimate critique of the other editor's deep revert without discussion or consideration of other viewpoints.
- here, Olive points out that the other editor is engaging in a BLP violation and editing against consensus.
- another time Olive points out a mass reversion without discussion or consensus in violation of the Arb guidelines.
In all of the above, Olive explains herself while the other editor engages in IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@Arbs, please see IRWolfie's repeated personalized attacks on me below, which I am simply going to say are untrue, inaccurate, and impute motives to me that I do not have. I call his actions against Olive as they seem to me, it is for the arbs to assess the evidence and reach a decision. Olive should have her block lifted, or at least shortened dramatically. Consider my attempts to defend myself against all that is written below to be necessary lest silence be deemed consent. I have several times here stated that I do not seek sanctions against Wolfie, yet he asks someone to "please deal with" me. I think that statement pretty much proves my case. (No Wolfie, I don't hate you. I do feel a great deal of frustration at your current behavior however, and your assumption of ill will toward Olive, who is a very sweet and kind human being, disappoints me greatly. Please also re-read WP:BAIT because you are doing it. ) Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by IRWolfie-
On Olives request, I believe anyone reading [16] can only come to one reasonable conclusion. That Olive is still unable to see this, and will eventually return to editing that same problematic topic area without realising the issues with her behaviour is worrying. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
@Arbs. Should the block really expire so soon, if, even in the face of clear examples as indicated by MastCell and Seraphimblade, Olive still insists she does not understand what she did that was in any way problematic? I'm also curious why Olive "became frustrated with" me during the talk page interactions. There is nothing I have said on that talk page which is problematic or was identified as problematic by the uninvolved admins. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
reply to Montanabw
|
|---|
|
Why have I not been informed of this thread in which I am being attacked? Montantabw is very very far from being uninvolved. Montanabw has taken a very large grudge against me ever since I edited an article in April of last year (Animal-assisted therapy), in which I was attacked for being Anti-AAT and Pro-AAT. Montanabw took up this grudge, seemingly, because I pointed out the systematic issues with the article at the time. It was based almost entirely under non-MEDRS sources being used for medical claims, which Montanbw appears to have added, see through Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2 (typified by Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2#WP:MEDRS_vs_WP:RS). What's also of note is that after Monantabw supported Olive, olive returned the favour in talk pages of articles she has seemingly never edited so as to support Montanabw: [17][18]. Montanabw made unsubstantiated claims against me at the WP:AE thread, and is continuing the trend here by repeating them. I would ask that Montanabw desist from turning up at random administrative threads to attack me. @Montanabw, Do you not see that it is self-evidently ridiculous to insinuate that I am somehow being self centred because I am responding to your unsubstantiated attacks against me. "This isn't about me or him", you say, yet you mention my name 6 times in your original filing, and 19 times in your section in total and you say your post isn't fixated on me? Do you not consider it odd to state "This isn't about me or him", and to then list your viewpoint on some of our previous interactions (examples which I have not mentioned)? Clearly you view me as some sort of wiki-enemy and Olive as a "wiki-friend", and clearly your reasoning for commenting here is unrelated to the specifics of this case but rather because of your own personal enmity against me due to our past interactions. As Seraphimblade's diffs clearly show, my calm posts where met with accusations that I was making threats, that I was on "thin ice", that I was making "unconscionable" edits and somehow wrecking someone's life, and similar emotional blackmail (Diffs all at [19]). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
Further reply to assertions by Montanabw
|
|---|
|
Preferably I would prefer if the arbitrators or clerks would prevent Montanabw's self evidently incorrect assertions against me, including allegations that I am engaging in BLP violations. @Montanabw,
|
@Arbs, can someone please deal with clearly frivolously attacks Montanabw has made? It is quite evident that her/his interpretation of the diffs is solely based on a hatred of me. The analysis of the diffs presented by Montanabw clearly makes no sense at all and I don't like to have baseless accusations against me of often " throwing ... tantrums", BLP violations etc etc. This free pass by Montanabw to make demonstrably false attacks on me, while giving Olive a free pass, is part of what makes Wikipedia so toxic. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
An aside on the article GAR
|
|---|
|
@Olive you say "I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now." You do realise the article was delisted because the review was flawed i.e it was never at GA quality. To quote the closer: "Many of the sources cited appear to not be very high quailty, e.g. US Peace Government, John Hagelin org, Improbable Research. There appears to be an over-reliance on the inclusion of much Fringe Theory information". IRWolfie- (talk) |
- Note that I have filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Littleolive_oil due to a violation of the topic ban, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by MastCell
Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide experienced admins with leeway to handle complex behavioral issues. The standard here is whether this sanction was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. If no reasonable admin would reach the conclusion that Seraphimblade and Clreland did in this case, then the sanction should be overturned. If, on the other hand, the sanction is the result of reasonable administrative discretion, then it should stand.
I've been involved in some of the discussions at Talk:John Hagelin, and so I'm commenting as an involved editor rather than as an admin here. That said, when I review the first two threads linked by Olive in her appeal:
- In this thread, Olive defends the use of original research to "rebut" a news item published in Nature, because Olive is sure that Nature got it wrong.
- In this thread, Olive supports using a website associated with a dubious award in preference to an article from Nature.
In both cases, I see Olive making arguments which contravene our basic sourcing policies, and then sticking to them in the face of policy-based counterarguments. Those behaviors were, in my view, correctly identified as problematic by Seraphimblade and Clreland, two experienced admins. I think this sanction was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and, in fact, the sort of action which discretionary sanctions are designed to facilitate. MastCell Talk 00:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I've been mentioned above. Although I didn't see anything actionable in the AE thread, the statements by Seraphimblade and MastCell show that this sanction was, at least, a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. I therefore recommend to decline the appeal. Sandstein 07:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by {uninvolved editor}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Montanabw and IRWolfie-, it is getting difficult to see the substance of the appeal here. Can you both please rewrite your statements to focus on the AE appeal and not on each other. Montanabw, please can you provide specific diffs and focus on your views on Littleolive oil's appeal, rather than your general opinion of IRWolfie-. And IRWolfie-, rather than responding to Montanabw, please focus on presenting your views on Littleolive oil's appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think MastCell has it basically right here; it is not an unreasonable sanction amongst the range of sanctions that could have been chosen; it was, even at the time it was applied, supported by at least one other administrator; and there are grounds for the sanction to be applied. There is nothing perverse or outrageous about this sanction. Therefore, I think it should be allowed to stand. Olive has demonstrated that she is interested and competent in editing other areas of the project, and this is a good opportunity for her to continue her contributions whilst also stepping away from a contentious area where at times her personal interpretation of data gets in the way of NPOV. Risker (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Decline appeal. We should not be in the business of micromanaging discretionary sanctions by committee. T. Canens (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- AE does not operate by consensus; the sanction was imposed for clear misconduct; and the sanction imposed was within the range of fair discretion. Decline. AGK [•] 19:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade's concerns regarding Littleolive oil's behavior on an article under Discretionary Sanctions appear to be appropriate. Seraphimblade has explained the situation quite well to Littleolive oil. I don't see a need for the Committee to get involved. Decline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Decline: Seraphimblade's actions here were a reasonable application of adminstrator discretion. Roger Davies talk 12:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Clarification request: Infoboxes
Initiated by uninvolved Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) at 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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:
- Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified
- Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified
Statement by Anthonyhcole
In expanding Quattro pezzi sacri from a stub, Gerda added an infobox.[25] Neutralhomer offered to add infoboxes to articles for Greda.[26] 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)
- Per Jclemens below, I see that in Wikipedia:Banning policy, the section Edits by and on behalf of banned editors expressly allows others to edit on behalf of banned users. On the policy talk page I proposed changing from the present wording,
toWikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.
Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) without first establishing consensus at WP:AN or WP:ANI that doing so would be productive.
- Only 2 editors commented, User:Kww and User:NE Ent. Both opposed my suggested change, Kww proposed an alternative change. --08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
- Per User:Mark Arsten's question below: I also believe that turning a redirect into an article is an article creation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I support Drmies "redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs" ideas. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
ps: "see also", written to Smerus 22 August 2013 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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 [27]. --Folantin (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Question from Smeat75
Another editor has left this comment on Gerda's talk page [28] "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)
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)
- I would also consider turning a redirect into an article to be article creation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
Reductio ad absurdum from NE Ent
I have made you a template:
 | Unclean! Unclean! Unclean! User:Gerda Arendt has touched this page. Any editor adding a -- gasp -- 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.
Statement by randomly involved Drmies
Of course turning a redirect into an article should count as creation--even if there was content which was turned into a redirect and subsequently turned into a real article: substance matters, and I draw that substantive from below. AGK: "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". I couldn't agree more. Note that I carefully left off the second part of their sentence, since in my opinion this "substantive" article work ("'creation'"--note the quotes within quotes) applies to DYK as well, an area where Gerda is one of our most prolific editors. In a nutshell, let her add infoboxes if she likes to redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- And I will add that I don't think that Homer or anyone else should in any way do this for her, or on her behalf. That's editing by proxy. The restrictions are there, for better or for worse; clarifying and/or amending them is one thing, but this would be quite another. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Smeat75: "The DYK standard is considered the equivalent to new article creation"--I don't agree with that statement, since it implies a kind of policy or guideline. I agree with the spirit of the thought, as I said above, but not with the "is considered" part. (I say this is a kind of DYK junkie myself, and with due deference to Montanabw.) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Montanabw
I support Drmies idea of " In a nutshell, let her add infoboxes if she likes to redirect-become-articles and articles-become-DYKs. " We don't need to get involved with a blanket policy here, but I think it makes perfect sense that long-abandoned articles should be treated as new for the purpose of Gerda being allowed to add an infobox. I'd say if she significantly expands an article in a way that meets the DYK criteria (and if there is a dispute, submit it to DYK, obviously, which Gerda usually does anyway), then she should be allowed to add an infobox. Ditto making a redirect into a new article. I would also note that if she begins an expansion and someone else (who might be stalking her edits, gee no one here does that, right?) suddenly jumps in the minute she appears, adds more material before she's done, then claims they did the expansion so she can't add the infobox without penalty, that person should be slapped for baiting. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The issue of what is "proxy editing" is now an even bigger problem. I really am concerned about ideas such as Silk Tork's "For example, tracking Gerda's edits for the purpose of adding infoboxes to articles she edits would be inappropriate." So, let's say that (for the sake of argument) User:Nikkimaria, who is publicly known by everyone here to track Gerda's edits, adds an infobox because she noticed Gerda is working on an article and Nikki decided that it needed an inbobox. Do we sanction Nikki? (This, by the way, has happened, though Gerda's 5x expansion edits occurred long before the current drama.) Or what if a public post on Gerda's talk page like, "gee this article about Foo has no infobox," and someone adds the infobox? Are they going to be slapped? Are they proxy editing just because Gerda mentioned it? This is becoming a bit ridiculous, I think NE Ent is onto something here.— Shall we have a rule that if Gerda touches an article, no matter how obscure and forgotten, then it can NEVER have an infobox unless Folantin, Smerus, and Kleinzach all agree first? And if one of them adds it, are they proxy editing? I can also see someone (can't think who, but in theory) could go through the catalogue of the works of major classical composers and create dozens of one-line stubs, just to be mean to Gerda so she can't add an infobox. That would be total crap. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course, an appropriate and logical solution to all of this relies on an outbreak of common sense, so I'm not holding my breath. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Jclemens
The statement "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." is not consistent with established policy, as codified in WP:PROXYING which currently reads "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I'll note that the committee has, in the past, specifically authorized certain sitebanned users to contribute content work via proxy editing using this clause. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
Where a literal sanction has absurd consequences, it is reasonable to question the sanction.
The concept that "if an editor makes an edit even where not in any way solicited by a banned editor but the banned editor might approve of the edit, that such an edit is improper" is quite sufficiently absurd. Where an editor has substantially altered an article from a prior state into an encyclopedic state, that qualifies, IMHO, as being as much an act of creation as the fact that a composer may take a traditional melody and create a piece of music, or that an editor may take a bare mention of a topic and create an actual article on it. [29] was the "article at issue" before the added material. It consisted of six lines total. 87 words in toto. It now has three dozen sentences, and over 1100 words. To treat this as other than substantially a creation of an article makes a mockery of the English language, and those who try parsing exact "letter of the law" are not doing Wikipedia any favour in either the short run nor the long run. Make it a strongly worded sanction -- and say "the editor must have increased the article content by at least a factor of ten" and this would still not be a violation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by only-slightly-involved SarekOfVulcan
I'd say that for all practical purposes, Gerda created the current article. Courcelles' metrics below look like a reasonable shot at guidelines for handling this question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
- I notice some concerns regarding acting on behalf of a restricted user. If an unrestricted editor independently decides that an article is better off with an infobox, even if that article were created by a restricted user, I can't see anyone sanctioning them. However, if that editor is observed to have added infoboxes to a series of articles by a restricted user, then it would be appropriate to discuss the matter with that editor and advise them that their editing pattern could be read as proxying. The aim of sanction enforcement is to prevent disruption, not to prevent normal editing. Someone setting out to deliberately proxy edit for a restricted user is likely to create disruption. I can't see a reason for concern over normal editing procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I echo SilkTork's comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Having thought about this, and after some discussion among arbitrators, I am coming to the conclusion that this sanction is unworkable. It may be best to modify it to a straight out ban on this editor adding infoboxes to any articles (regardless of whether they created the article or not), coupled with a reminder that this whole matter is not about any single editor. It should be about encouraging thoughtful discussion of infoboxes and what their role is and how editors should discuss them where their use is disputed. I am sure Gerda would be quite willing to not add infoboxes to any articles for the next six months if that meant that people's attention would be diverted from her editing and towards discussion of the larger picture. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- Fully agreed with SilkTork. I would deny this request to proxy for Gerda. AGK [•] 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Turning a redirect into an article is, at least to me, obviously an article that Gerda has created and can add an infobox if she likes. This is one of the rare, and I mean RARE cases I could get behind a numerical definition for an arbitration restriction. A rule like "Gerda may add an infobox to any article that never has had more than 30 words of readable prose, after she has expanded to at least 200 words of readable prose" might be workable, and the hard numbers would keep drama down on all sides. Note that the "redirect to article" scenario would be covered clearly under that wording. Courcelles 21:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- A distinction could, I suppose, be made between creating pages and creating articles, though I'm unclear why the need to turn redirects into articles is so pressing. (In any event, this could probably be archived now as it's not really going anywhere.) Roger Davies talk13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)