Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions

Any evidence subpages for this new page?

This wisely broken-out page will prove very useful. However it is apparent that in one or more clarification requests, the process difference between opening and reopening cases, as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, may be leading to confusion. Unlike a new case, there appears no provision for extending (500-word) summaries of reopened requests into evidence subpages, as I alluded on this page. Perhaps this is deliberate and/or there is a standard methodology already in place of which I am unaware.

In the Franco-Mongol case, perhaps due to this omission, several users have exceeded 500 words, possibly relying on an inference I observed somewhere that responses to other users may not necessarily be counted within the limit; and, incredibly, one user has already been refactored by three clerks, limiting the amount of summary material available for presenting a case. Also the clarification case has become a harbor for several violently opposed amendment proposals.

I recognize that discussing lacunae in a policy may be questionable when offered from a party simultaneously in a process covered by the policy, but it appears that in this heavily attended case an ad hoc standard may be better than leaving the question open. The process as-is seems to suggest that clarifications of rulings should be straightforward enough that ArbCom input can be safely predicated solely upon summaries and not upon extended evidence. The current case may not be that easily handled.

I note that four arbiters have already considered this ripe for reopening, which in an ordinary case would be grounds for creating an evidence subpage subject to the wider restrictions of generally 1000 words or 100 diffs, with some leeway. I would appreciate some clerk or arbiter statement as to whether the several involved editors should feel free to use some fresh page (such as this talk page) for expansion of their summary comments at this time, as it appears several of the involved editors by their actions express a silent consensus that the summary limit is exceedible in this case and that the floodgates may be opened. Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of requests

My understanding is that the new requests are supposed to be listed first, and the oldest requests are supposed to be listed last. Is that correct? The instructions say, "Click the [Edit] link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests."

Since the request about me seems to be the oldest, shouldn't it be at the bottom?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that when a request for clarification leads to arbitrators voting on proposals (which doesn't always happen), it gets moved to the bottom. As there haven't been any motions made as of now on your request for clarification, but others have, it's not at the bottom. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hopefully there will be some kind of resolution of this Request at some future time before I get old and die. Not that I'm impatient, of course. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldest requests should be at the bottom, whether or not they require voting doesn't matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the PHG motion

Should it really be "and/or" between the two sections? I'm not sure what it means. I also wonder if 'articles' would be better than 'his articles'.--Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to eliminate "his articles". "and/or" means that PHG can use one or both ways to meet the requirement. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of how the "and/or" thing would work. I wasn't sure.--Slp1 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With these restrictions, is there any purpose for the topic ban on medieval history? Perhaps that remedy should be supplanted. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please no. If PHG is allowed to go back to editing articles about medieval history as long as he uses English-language sources, I anticipate that we would go right back to a state of edit war on Franco-Mongol alliance and other articles. Many of our core disputes were still about misinterpretation of English-language sources. And we still have dozens of other articles that we haven't finished cleaning up yet. The main thing that the new "English-only" restriction will do, will make it easier for other editors to followup on what PHG is doing. And I'm sorry if this sounds like an assumption of bad faith, but I still anticipate continued problems with misinterpretation, regardless of which language that he's using. --Elonka 08:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka on this point and would like to add that PHG's use of widely-available English language sources was just as problematic as his use of obscure or non-English ones. Restricting him to use of the former may make it easier for other editors to check his work, but it does not good at all in getting PHG to listen to or work with them. In my experience, it takes weeks of argument for PHG even to admit that he might have made a mistake, and I have yet to see any glimmer of understanding on his part on his problematic use of sources. I would strongly support mandatory mentorship in that it might have the added effect of helping PHG learn to work with others while helping him avoid future sourcing issues. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good quesiton, we need an answer to that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It seems to me the arbs are voting for BOTH remedies. I say this because if they only supported one, they'd say so. Unless instructed otherwise, I'll implement both when there are 7 votes (currently there are 12 active arbs, so a majority is 7). For the record, the topic ban should remain in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, Rlevse. This [1] suggests that the idea is that PHG can choose which of the two options he will choose (or both).Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that the other amendment being considered, about extending PHG's restrictions to include other pages, is now off the table? We still have the question of whether or not he should be allowed to make subpages in his userspace that deal with medieval history. --Elonka 10:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "and/or" ruling has passed. I have asked the arbs a question about implementation and will take care of the whole clarification request when I have an answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Only the "and/or" ruling passed. The other did not. So I'm implementing only the "and/or" motion at this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Overload

The breakoff to this page may have made things clearer, but I fear that it is increasing arbitrator overload. They are likely to spend more time over on the main request page, instead of here. Not to be too pointy, but how long will it take for an arbitrator to respond to this? Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Until now, but I was on a wikibreak until Friday.... For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the page split, nor of the increased complexity of the "requests for clarifications" format, but we can continue the experiment for awhile and see how it goes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply

I would like to make few comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply to my request, I hope this is the right place to do it.

First of all we all know that the main goal is "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" i.e. "high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources". We all know also that consensus does not always achieve this result. But there is absolutely no reason to think that one or few admins acting unilaterally and "discretionarily" would do better than consensus of several people on the talk pages. Admins are just more powerful users, not more wise ones. It is misleading to focus on the fact that consensus does not necessarily produce the good of the encyclopedia without addressing the fact that the decision of few uninvolved admins could be even *less likely* to realize the good of the encyclopedia.

Second and most important point: I cited people being banned for editing supported by consensus but It was not a criticism to the admins. It was a criticism to the situation that this action creates: if I must be afraid of being banned even for editing what is supported by the consensus then I can't definitely feel free to make any kind of edit at all! To be able to edit without being afraid I would need to consult the admins who could sanction the ban but this would make them "involved".

Third: we should always keep in mind that admins are just users with more tools. The punishments are not being delivered by an impartial jury after having listened the accusations and the defenses. The punishments do not even reflect a consensus inside the wikipedia community. The punishments are "discretionary", they just reflect the opinion of a single or few "users with more tools". It's like if a group of policemen both accuses you of a crime and sentence you to jail without any defense being allowed. Defenses are indeed completely ignored and discouraged with threats (as I have shown). Also the statement "editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it" seem to be a way to discourage people to defending themselves.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among a group of like minded people, such as 9/11 Truth Movement supporters, does not overrule core policy. You cannot overturn neutral point of view with 10, or even 100 editors at a particular article. Jehochman ^Talk 10:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. It's seems just a bad faith assumption which I'm not interested to address.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to this incident, which resulted in your being banned from editing 9/11-related articles. Continuing to stonewall and wikilawyer is not going to help your case. Jehochman ^Talk 11:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. To call people disagreeing with you "9/11 Truth Movement supporter" is just an unnecessay way to attack and to go into ideological struggle, maybe you like it, I do not.
2. I'm not asking any help, I am expressing my opinion, is it allowed?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not the place to express personal opinions. They are a place for consolidating verifiable information, presented from a neutral point of view. The statement you linked to has nothing to do with me. Please be more accurate in the future. The Wikipedia community is thoroughly tired of POV pushing on 9/11 articles. Those who whitewash articles by misrepresenting conspiracy theories as fact will be stopped from doing so, by bans or blocks if necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Obviously I am not expressing opinion in "wikipedia articles"
2. The statement I linked has to do with ideological struggle as your statements are
3. You just can't speak for the wikipedia community
4. I think to be working for WP:NPOV and I consider offensive and a bad faith assumption to be called "POV pusher".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an assumption of bad faith, because there is evidence, quite a lot of it, that you have been POV pushing. This is why you have been banned from editing these articles. As for offensive, I think it is offensive to insinuate that a living person has murdered thousands of people, when there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever. I for one do not understand why you are allowed to continue editing Wikipedia in any capacity, as you have failed to recognize problems and failed to provide any reassurance that things will be different in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)