Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seddon (talk | contribs) at 02:28, 29 August 2009 (→Request for clarification: Ryulong (4): closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71 Motions 26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation]] none none 24 August 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (3)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (3)]] Motion none 8 August 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (2)|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (2)]] none none 5 August 2009

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Statement by John Carter

Requesting clarification of whether or not the terms of probation on Falun Gong related articles allow for uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban on the basis of the terms as is currently being requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip rajeev. I'm not sure if I have to notify all the other parties who have already commented on the request for enforcement there, but will do so if such is requested. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius

I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please also note that I have amended the sanction requested from indefinite ban from wikipedia to indefinite topic ban from all Falun Gong related articles and talkpages, construed widely. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I was the one to first raise this question, and refer the Committee to my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comment by Sandstein. I would also appreciate a clarification of this point. In reply to Ohconfucius, any previous sanctions do not by themselves constitute sufficient authority for new sanctions; it may well be that these previous sanctions were themselves unauthorized under the remedy.  Sandstein  09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vassyana

This has been generally treated as a standard article probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. Please note the examples above and listed at the case log, as well as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong. If this is inccrrect, I expect that ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or enforcement admins would have long-ago corrected the misuse of the remedy. A clarification to explicitly state the status quo handling of the remedy should not be necessary. It should suffice for arbitrators to uphold the standard interpretation, as they are doing in Olaf Stephanos' specific case. If it is really considered necessary to deal with this by way of formal clarification, then please resolve the matter by motion ASAP to prevent this from becoming an in for all previous and standing sanctions to be wikilawyered. --Vassyana (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that John Carter has requested Kirill's input, per NYB's request.[1]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

The intent of the remedy, as written, was to both (a) place the article on standard article probation, which allows administrators to enact topic bans on their own discretion and (b) provide an explicit provision for further review should the probation prove unsuccessful. I see no reason to believe that any of the arbitrators voting for this remedy believed its meaning to be different from this. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (3)

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

Statement by Wikidemon

Questions presented

My first request went something like this: Template:Blockquotetop Q1: May editors restricted from interacting with each other (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits?
A1: No. (see here) Template:Blockquotebottom There now seems to be some confusion among Arbcom members, administrators, and non-admin editors alike,[2] on the scope of the "no" answer here, and I have a further concern regarding the stay-away order. I'm therefore asking some follow-up questions: Template:Blockquotetop Q2: May editors topic banned from Obama-related articles:

  • file[3] or participate in meta-space discussions of Obama-related content[4] or events[5]?
  • participate in an AFD regarding Obama-related articles?[6][7]?
  • edit list articles about Obama?[8]

Q3: May editors under restriction "not to interact with each other":

  • accuse a group of several editors, including the editor with whom they are not supposed to interact, of bad faith?[9][10]
  • dispute the good faith of a meta-space participation of an editor with whom they are not supposed to interact? (see above)


A: ? Template:Blockquotebottom

Process notes

  1. I am wondering whether this should have been brought up as a request for amendment on the one hand, or a request for enforcement on the other? Instead of focusing on what the voting majority of arbitrators may or may not have intended at the time (the answer to which may well be "they were not thinking the same thing" as it is with the sanction durations, below), can we please concentrate on what the topic ban limits should be, and how to best maintain a productive editing environment on Wikipedia? The post-decision Obama-related incident among the parties to the case that gave rise to this question was clearly not a good thing. The question here should be: do we want to make clear that it is a violation of sanctions, or do we want to make clear that it is beyond the scope of the sanctions and instead a matter for the community to handle?
  2. Speaking of community matters, I note that a new no-contact order has been enacted between Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight,[11] not without some disagreement, and with terms that differ from the two no-contact orders issued in the Arbcom case. That would be the second instance - I believe Grundle2600 is also under some community sanctions that exceed his Arbcom sanctions. As a party to the current incident I believe I am within the bounds of my own restrictions to comment on the wisdom and process of these stay-away orders even though the discussion is occuring at AN/I rather than here. If anyone has any qualms about that please let me know directly and I'll bring the discussion here instead - or if you want to ban the parties from commenting over their own situations I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good idea. Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

collapsing but still there in case anyone wants to read
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is growing a little stale and I don't want to burden the page with so much evidence, so collapsed - Wikidemon (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first clarification arose over my dismay with accusations by ChildofMidnight on AN/I and his own talk page that I was acting in bad faith, trolling, stalking, and maintaining bias on the Obama talk pages. [12][13][14][15] As the first on the ever-growing list of content editors, passers by, administrators, arbitrators, and Wikipedia founders ChildofMidnight has attacked as vandals and trolls for getting in his way, I seem to be a favorite target for these kinds of made-up claims as to my intentions, frame of mind, and editing history. The difference now is that I was far away from ChildofMidnight, and the two of us were supposedly under a stay-away order. ChildofMidnight's attacking me when I wasn't around was problematic because I couldn't respond to defend myself given our mutual editing restriction, I couldn't file a notice board complaint or request assistance or advice from an administrator (something I assumed would be a sanction violation on my part because it would necessarily engage ChildofMidnight), and I could not afford to let the accusations lie. When it became clear that the accusations would not stop even after I stepped well clear of ChildofMidnight, I asked in this forum for a clarification on whether they were okay. The clear answer in so many words was "no". One administrator commented here that "any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order."

A few hours ago, a stream of such comments did occur. ChildofMidnight jumped into an AN/I subsection I had started to accuse me and two other editors of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NPOV violations, being among "abusive and disruptive editors who will come after you stalking and hounding you until you're blocked if you don't tow the line".[16] "mob rule", censorship, stalking, harassment, intimidation, abuse, and being "abusive trolls".[17] That was before I filed this request and the wider drama surrounding ChildofMidnight's ensuing block; far more creative and vitriolic streams of abuse were hurled at me and a dozen others (I believe he has called one administrator a worm now, another an obscene embarrassment, and a third, "cancerous") after I sought help here.

What happened is that several hours before, William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with ongoing editing problems on the Obama articles,[18] filed an AN/I report over "mob and ownership tactics of the band of Obama article protecters" at Public image of Barack Obama,[19] and eventually requesting blocks and bans, after failing in his attempt to edit war into that article March's presidential taunt of the month[20] that Obama is the "teleprompter president". As the first of three editors who reverted this proposal[21] he was clearly referring to me. I offered some evidence and suggested a straightforward least-drama resolution to clear up the matter.[22] Another editor put my comments in a new subsection.[23] This kind of routine disruption is nothing that the Obama editors cannot handle if left to their own, and basically just requires everyone to chill out.

Unfortunately, we were not left to our own. In his first direct encounter with me since our stay-away order, ChildofMidnight jumped into my new AN/I subsection to accuse us three editors (plus perhaps another editor or two who had joined the AN/I conversation by then) of abuse, disruption, stalking, being trolls, and other nasties.[24] [25] This caused one editor to declare they were quitting the topic, and inflamed a bunch of others, including Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another party to the Arbcom case, against whom ChildofMidnight then filed another AN/I report.[26] In disrupting the Obama-related AN/I report, ChildofMidnight was not only shielding another editor's bad behavior in an Obama article through groundless accusations of bad faith, he was also furthering a content position on what the article should say.[27]

As with the earlier incident, the combination of ChildofMidnight's unprovoked personal attacks, and the ambiguity in the editing restrictions, left me no viable option other than to seek clarification here. Like Scjessey and a number of administrators, I interpret the Arbcom remedies broadly: not interacting with ChildofMidnight means not commenting about him behind his back, not insulting a group of three editors that includes him, not going to a discussion he starts to argue against his position, and so on - not saying, or reacting, or doing, or having anything to do with him. Similarly, I assumed that Arbcom's topic ban meant what it said, that ChildofMidnight was supposed to entirely avoid editing on the topic of Barack Obama broadly construed, whether it was content, the upkeep of the pages, links, deletions, categories, templates, administrative actions to protect the pages, etc.

ChildofMidnight's appearance in a sub-thread I started, arguing against my content and process position, and accusing me of being in bad faith, left me in an untenable situation. He had disrupted my discussion. I could not respond in any way, not even to say that my position was correct, because I did not want to violate the stay-away order myself. It's analogous to two people subject to a mutual restraining order who find themselves sitting next to each other on the bus. If you value your peace of mind you simply leave, whoever got there first - you don't get into an argument about which one of you has the right to the seat. Here at Arbcom we can discuss the seating arrangements on the bus. But over at AN/I, when ChildofMidnight jumped into the next seat to argue I was part of a pro-Obama mob I had to back far away. Fearful of violating my own editing restriction if I reacted at all, I hatted my own contribution and quit the thread.[28]

Variants of these and other close calls have been occurring regularly for the past month. By some counts ChildofMidnight has violated the Arbcom sanctions six or eight times now, each time with a new twist. Now he refers throughout the encyclopedia to the whole group of editors that includes me, not just me, of being censors, trolls, POV-pushers, etc. with respect to Obama articles (he has done this lately throughout the encyclopedia) without referring to me by name.

As before I was very careful in my initial filing to be neutral, minimize my references to ChildofMidnight, and not to seek any remedy, just an impartial clarification as to what the boundaries are. As before, my filing a careful report has resulted in a fresh volley of insults. I have rewritten my initial report here to be much more specific in discussing ChildofMidnight's behavior, but the block was not my doing. I am after some clear, effective rules going forward.

More possible violations

hatted by WD to avoid being too long
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the past few minutes, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been:

If you're following any of this, William S Saturn is the editor whose edit warring to add some disparaging teleprompter material to an Obama article triggered this latest incident, when ChildofMidnight stepped in to the AN/I report WSS filed to accuse me and other editors of abuse, disruption, stalking, trolling, etc (see above). The problem here is that ChildofMidnight is inciting clearly disruptive Obama edits by DSS, while also obstructing the work of admins and nonadmin editors to deal with that kind of trouble on the Obama articles. If you look at the evidence in the case, the very same behavior, and identical accusations, were much of the objection raised over ChildofMidnight's edits in the first place.

Discussion

If warranted I will expand an argument below that: (1) the existing Arbcom sanctions are ambiguous as to whether meta-pages are covered in the Obama topic bans and editing restrictions; (2) the edit warring, name-calling, accusations, etc., necessitating the sanctions, and harm to the project sought to be avoided were identical in article space, talk space, AfDs, ANI reports, templates, and user pages; (3) one cannot realistically prevent disruption to article and talk pages without preventing disruption to the meta-pages that exist to maintain order on those pages - if you disrupt AN/I as a forum for resolving problems in an article, you disrupt the article; (4) in this particular incident and in others in which I was not involved following the end of the case, ChildofMidnight's content disruption and personal attacks were the exact sort of behavior that merited the arbcom sanctions in the first place; and (5) given that a key reason mentioned explicitly by the arbitrators in enacting sanctions was that the conflict had spread to five or six project spaces, the intent of at least some arbitrators was that the sanctions should apply to those spaces. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

hatted by WD to avoid being too long
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If anyone really wants to solve this instead of wasting hundreds more hours of people's time in pointless process (which would add to a total in thousands), we need to recognize a few things. First, despite its title the matter here is not Obama articles or article probation. It is the behavior of several editors who happened to be at the same time and place during a 2-day period when Wikipedia was under politically motivated external attack. The attack subsided quickly, the articles maintained a stability, and there has never been a showing that these articles need the special (yet excruciatingly slow, bureaucratic, and frankly, ineffectual) type of attention Arbcom can provide. There is no problem addressed here that could not have been solved far more simply by a willing administrator. Second, once we acknowledge this as a simple behavior issue, there is and always has been only one editor here who has misbehaved to any significant degree. Can we stop this pretense and get real for a moment? If you look at the edit history of every editor involved in this latest incident, can you in all sincerity say that there is any systemic problem here? It is bizarre and dysfunctional to even be discussing the question of whether this peculiar institution we Wikipedians call a "topic ban" applies to one particular page or another, when it's so obvious we have someone acting out and causing trouble, who needs to stop acting out and causing trouble.

But if we must, on the technical question of whether the wording of the existing topic ban includes all Obama-related pages, or just article and talk space, the simple answer is that it is textually ambiguous. "You must avoid doing X in Y, including Z" does not by itself establish whether Y and Z is an inclusive or exclusive condition, or whether you must actually be present in Y to be doing X. It is a fair call to say that ChildofMidnight should not be sanctioned for violating the ban in places where it is ambiguous, but now that we are here as a clarification rather than an enforcement, arbitrators may resolve the ambiguity in whatever way they feel most accomplishes the goals of the project. Whether covered by the ban or not, X was a bad thing to do, and falls on the heels of dozens of other bad things that were done. Can we please get this editor to stop doing X? He has been allowed to do X for nine months now to 30+ different editors and many important articles. It is hurting the project and wasting all our time.

- Wikidemon (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This is outrageous. More harassment from an editor whose behavior was so atrocious and inappropriate they had to be banned from further contact with me. I haven't made a single content edit to an Obama article. Stalkers, including the one above, have pursued my contributions to any article they can argue is somehow Obama related. It's a joke. This is a continuation of their campaign of smears and half-truths against me. If I'm not allowed to speak plainly about this editor's behavior and activities then they shouldn't be able to file reports like this. This is absolutely disruptive. This editor has worked long and hard to have me banned and blocked (and I'm not the only one. Diffs available upon request).

It's enough already that Arbcom rewarded their harassment, stalking, and abuse. Put a stop to this. They are not allowed to interact with me PERIOD. I can't be expected not to comment on them if they are allowed to continue to stalk me in this way. Obama articles are Obama articles. I have let the disputes go on periferally related articles and walked away to avoid drama, but Obama comments on lots of issues and topics and the stalking of me and accusations against me need to end. If there's a concern that my editing is controversial or on an Obama article there are plenty of people who can let me know without this kind of smearing attack. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DIFF OF A SUBSTANTIAL CONTENT CHANGE I'VE MADE TO OBAMA CONTENT and I haven't made a single comment on an Obama article talk page.

That this editor is allowed to continue editing the Obama articles despite their behavior and stalking and harassment of NUMEROUS editors is an outrage. That they are also allowed to continue their abusive behavior against me is shocking.

This team effort to abuse editors who challenge their censorship and violations of our core NPOV policy cannot be allowed to continue. The policy states: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable source. These abusive and disruptive editors simply drag their opponents again and again and again through the mud on various boards. Without their activities we could all be contributing constructively to article content.

Arbcom should be disgusted with itself for rendering a decision that encourages this pattern of abusive behavior. As I stated in the Obama arbitration, failing to take action against those making personal attacks and harassing good faith contributors will only encourage the problem to grow. That's exactly what we've seen. More editors have been chased off the articles and off Wikipedia because of this disgusting abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that I should not have added an article link to the list article page. It was a helpful edit and it's not content related or controversial, but it violated my topic ban. I think I didn't finish it (I was targeting it to the appropriate section) because I realized it was a no-no, but I don't really remember. I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time, but I shouldn't have made the edit at all. It was a mistake on my part and I apologize for it. I edit lots of articles so sometimes I may slip up. If someone wants to revert my change, go for it.

1RR on Obama articles would solve all this. I couldn't "edit war" and wouldn't have to keep dealing with this relentless stalking and harassment from these crazed POV pushers trying to find things to attack me with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I don't follow why this was brought here or what the confusion is. For question 2, the first answer was already given by Wizardman. Such editors may participate in meta discussions and AFD debates purely and simply because it's not a complete topic ban on all pages - it's limited to articles and their talk pages. However, they may not edit a list article that is related to Obama articles - that's, strictly speaking, a violation of the restriction. The diff supplied for ChildOfMidnight's topic ban violation which resulted in the block earlier today is accordingly incorrect.

As for the 3rd question on the comments made by CoM; I'm not aware of any restriction between the interactions of ChildOfMidnight and Unitanode. So there's no violation of some ArbCom restriction in those diffs, unless I'm missing something. However, they certainly have a quality that falls under general misconduct which can result in blocks and other sanctions of their own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC) modified slightly. 08:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey

With respect to Q2, I just assumed it was better to stay away from any Wikipedia document that involved Obama, except in processes such as these. It may be a broader interpretation than necessary, but it avoids confusion and it isn't exactly a hardship, is it? Wikipedia is a huge project, and the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months.

In the case of Q3, it doesn't really apply to me. I've had no contact with ChildofMidnight, apart from occasionally commenting on the same AfDs, RfAs, etc. I intentionally avoid articles where CoM participates. I'm well aware of CoM's continuous stream of accusations against other editors (particularly the use of terms such as "POV pushers"), including in these ArbCom-related discussions, but I prefer to just ignore them. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by association problem

This is partly a response to Wikidemon's "proposed motion". In the original case, proposed amendments and clarifications, discussions about me (and the sanctions placed upon me) have always been "lumped together" with ChildofMidnight. Except in the obvious case of the interaction sanction, I formally request that matters concerning me are treated completely independently from those concerning ChildofMidnight. Our editing histories, both prior and post the ArbCom case, could not be more different. Since the resolution of the case, our Wikipedia activity has been markedly different. I do not wish to be constantly associated with ChildofMidnight, because I am concerned that my efforts to be a better Wikipedian are being tarnished by what I view as guilt-by-association (both in the original ArbCom case, and the subsequent amendments and clarifications). This is not an unreasonable request, and I ask all parties (involved or otherwise) to give this matter due consideration. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I think it's necessary for one or the other of Wikidemon's first two motions (or something like them) to be passed. The scope of the topic ban needs to be better defined, but I think that's completely up to the committee. As I previously mentioned to Wizardman, I had been interpreting the ban as something to be construed widely, akin to Wikidemon's first proposed motion. The question of how to think about the scope first came up in late June, and I was basing my thinking at the time on these comments from Arbs in a then-active request for clarification (the discussion had been linked to by another admin and it seemed very germane to the Obama topic bans). Reviewing those comments may or may not be useful as Arbs consider this matter.

I may well have been operating under a false impression of the scope of the topic bans and that's basically fine/partially my bad (though no one was blocked by me for violating a "broadly construed" topic ban), so long as it can be clarified here one way or another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Jtrainor

I urge the Arbcom to stomp all over this complaint fast and furiously, with big, wooden clogs that have cleats strapped to them. CoM is absolutely correct that there are people that have been following him around Wikipedia and attempting to both provoke him and wikilawyer his restrictions to cover as wide an area as possible. Jtrainor (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CIreland

I have previously applied the remedies in this case to prevent ChildOfMidnight from discussing Obama-related matters in project space (in particular, in deletion discussions). I did so on the basis of this recent Request for Clarification in which the arbitration committee explained that topic-bans which prohibited both discussion and article editing applied to all namespaces. CIreland (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Proposed motions

  1. The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:
    [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed widely, to include Obama-related subjects within articles and associated talk pages whether or not the articles themselves are primarily about Obama, and pages in all namespaces (other than proceedings before Arbcom) pertaining to such articles.
  2. (alternate) The text of remedies no. 9 and 10 are amended as follows:
    (9 and 10): [user] is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages. The ban is to be construed narrowly, to include only articles and associated talk pages primarily about Obama, and not pages in other namespaces.
  3. The text of remedies no. 11 and 11.1 are amended as follows:
    [user1] and [user2] are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. For purposes of this remedy, negative comments about edits or behavior of the other, or procedural opposition to the other, in any namespace, whether by name, reference, or as a member of a small group of editors, (other than proceedings before Arbcom) shall be considered interaction. Doing so is grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

- Proposed by Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Mythdon

Does the motion reset the clock of ChildOfMidnight's topic ban? --Mythdon talk • contribs 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's what the "timed to run from the date the case closed" bit is for. Still six months, just a widening of the range of the restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you! ChildOfMidnight could most certainly use this clarification, while I have no use for it, as it doesn't affect me, but, again, thank you. --Mythdon talk • contribs 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: As written, I interpreted the ban to be just the articles and article talk pages. Granted, you still have to be courteous if discussing it on the project space, that's just common sense. I'll defer to how the other arbs interpreted these remedies, and if they would like to make a motion modifying them. Wizardman 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Scjessy here: "With respect to Q2, I just assumed it was better to stay away from any Wikipedia document that involved Obama, except in processes such as these. It may be a broader interpretation than necessary, but it avoids confusion and it isn't exactly a hardship, is it? Wikipedia is a huge project, and the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months." I would urge CoM to do the same and find other things to do for 6 months. If he continues to get involved in Obama-related discussions, bringing more heat than light, such a broad interpretation of his ban may need to be formally passed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have proposed a motion below to address the continuing conduct problems resulting from this case. The other clarification request from Wikidemon (about "editors under restriction not to interact with each other") may require a separate motion, but no arbitrators have addressed this yet, so awaiting further comments and discussions on that. Carcharoth (talk)
  • I'd interpret a broader interpretation. If we need to enshrine as a motion maybe we'd better do that now. Tinkering around the edges with ongoing conflict is not a good thing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Motion 1

There are 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

Support:
  1. Proposed. Noting that Scjessey is voluntarily holding to this extended level of restriction ("the Obama-related articles can manage just fine without me for 6 months"), and as the only other editor fully topic-banned in this case, I suggest Scjessey holds to that voluntary level of additional self-restriction. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. Moving a dispute elsewhere is not an appropriate response to a sanction. — Coren (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Concur with Carcharoth's additional comments. Risker (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 08:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Recuse
  1. Wizardman 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles (2)

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


Statement by Bigtimepeace

The issue here is a straightforward one which can be corrected quite quickly. The committee recently altered several of their remedies in the Obama case such that 1RR restrictions on several editors applied not to all articles but rather only to Obama-related articles. The problem is that two editors, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey, are also under a topic ban for these articles. The revised remedies now seem to conflict with that as worded. For example remedy 9.2 says that "ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles" for one year, except that for the next few months C of M is not supposed to be editing Obama articles at all. This was apparently cause for confusion as discussed on ChildofMidnight's talk page here.

ChildofMidnight now understands that the topic ban is still in effect, but it would probably be better if the language were clarified, or if an Arb simply made a statement here about how to interpret the remedies in question. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fayssal, I'm sorry but I find it highly illogical that the 1 year, 1RR restriction begins after the topic ban has ended. I don't think that can be true. For one thing, as Scjessey pointed out, the proposed decision specifically said "To run concurrently" (or at least that's what Wizardman said). There's no sign in the final decision that that had changed.
Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the original 1RR restriction (for Scjessey, ChildofMidnight, Sceptre, Grundle2600, and Stevertigo) was for all articles. Three of those editors were not hit with a topic ban, and obviously their restriction began immediately (indeed the whole reason that the original remedies were superseded was that one of the editors complained that the restriction was too harsh, so clearly it was in effect at that time and the committee treated it as such when it superseded the restriction with a narrower alternative). As far as I know there was no comment anywhere from the Arbs that the 1RR restrictions for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight were different, or that they were beginning in 6 months (again, that would have been bizarre, as the 1RR was not just for Obama articles, but rather for everything—why would it have not started right away and run alongside the topic ban?).
Additionally, despite what you are saying now, clearly all those in question believed they were under a 1RR restriction and I think myself and all other admins familiar with the case believed that as well. So they've already been abiding by that, but now you seem to be saying they have not even started serving their time (so to speak). That's a problem.
Finally, the whole point of switching from 1RR for everything to 1RR for Obama only was, I assume, to relax the original sanctions. While this has happened for the three editors who were not topic banned (they are not 1RR limited in non-Obama topics), your suggestion that the 1RR restriction does not go into effect for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight for 6 months has the effect of strengthening their sanctions. The original remedies clearly sanctioned them for a year, but now they have a year and a half of sanctions, which strikes me as rather excessive.
So I'm wondering if Fayssal maybe just got it wrong here. Regardless, the situation is in far more need of clarification than I thought. The committee needs to be much more clear about where we stand, and at this point that may actually require a further amending of the remedies. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChildofMidnight

As I seem to have been the only one who was confused, I don't think a clarification is needed. I'm straightened out now. Frankly, I hadn't realized Scjessey and I were the only ones topic banned and had, indeed, read the new remedy as allowing me to edit Obama articles as long as I limited myself to 1 revert a week and discussed any reverts (an proposal that seems pretty reasonable). That would be a more appropriate remedy, but I see that the other "remedy" is still in place, and I'm sure that any requests for modification would need to be filed in a different venue and queue. Anyway, I don't see any need for action or clarification. If the committee believes a 6 month ban serves a purpose aside from benefitting the censors and POV pushers camped out on those articles and the harassing stalkers who continue to use any sanction against me at every possible opportunity, then that's their priviledge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Fayssal's reading of the sanctions. 18 months? But whatever. The various policy violations engaged in by arbcom, their punitive punishments, and their lack of willingness to work collaboratively with editors to solve problems speaks for itself. I have noticed some improvement in response times which is nice. We waited months to get the monstrosity of a verdict you rendered in this case, and of course it's done nothing but perpetuate and aid the continued animosity, hostility, and abuse dished out on the Obama articles. But you guys are the captains of this ship, so who am I to yell ICEBEEEEERG!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The day there'd be no ANI reports and all what comes with regarding a conflict then I'd be able to accept an appeal to reduce the restrictions' period. We do that all the time. From the part of ArbCom, that only necessitates a round of discussions and a motion being drafted. From the part of the concerned parties, that needs dedication; more work. The periods are less relevant ChildofMidnight. Everything can be amended. Now, it is up to the parties to show ArbCom some progress. It is up to you to avoid the iceberg, we are not captains... you are the captains as we have just given you the ship and asked you to give it back to us without any damage. The sooner, the better. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is utter bullshit and shows you have not the slightest understanding of the nature of how POV pushers, stalkers, and harassment works on Wikipedia. The day arbcom assists good faith content contributors like Giano, Malleus, Badagnani, myself and others, instead of aiding and abetting those who abuse the noticeboards to disrupt our work, will be a true triumph for Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Mythdon

It's indeed very clear that the topic ban on ChildOfMidnight is still in place. The topic ban, from my calculations, lasts until approximately December 21, 2009.

I really actually have no involvement in this honestly, and have not reviewed the evidence of this case, and do not edit Obama articles, but without regard to that, anyone reading the remedy will know that the topic ban is still in place.

While it's clear that the topic ban is still in effect, my assumption is that the 1RR restriction on ChildOfMidnight with respect to the Obama articles takes effect once the topic ban ends. Is this true? If so, it would make sense to reword the restriction to that effect. The same clarification should also be done for Scjessy's 1RR restriction, and if it's the same case with Scjessy, a rewording will be needed for that 1RR too. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question (on unrelated issue) by Wikidemon

May we please have a clarification of the new remedy duration as well? The original 1RR per week restrictions were one year from the date they were issued, June 21 2009. The modifications also mention a period of 1 year, but are dated August 2, 2009.[39] I would assume the intent was not to reset the end dates, i.e. the new remedy applies until June 21, 2010, not August 2, 2010. To avoid conclusion it may help to make that clear. I mentioned this to User:MBisanz as clerk[40] but have not heard back. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per FayssalF, below, the 1 year 1RR periods run successively rather than concurrently with the 6 year topic bans, a possibility I had overlooked. If that is indeed the intent, maybe it is best to add some text like "...after the conclusion of the foregoing sanction". - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey

I am a little confused. It was my understanding that the sanctions were to run concurrently (as indicated in the proposed decision that was written by Wizardman). I do not recall anyone suggesting that these sanctions were to run successively. If this is indeed the case, it seems an extraordinarily harsh measure (even with the recent amendment). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The set of the articles in question belongs to the BLP area and we all know how that specific area is sensitive. That said, —and for now— you can still consider my view as that of an individual arbitrator; we are still waiting for the views of my colleagues. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

Checking in from Margaritaville even tho I was trying to avoid teh internets. Ah well. Anyways, I'd thought this all was pretty crystal-clear, as several users were given 2 prohibitions;

1) a 6-month ban from Obama-related topics and talk pages
2) a 1RR/page/week project-wide.

Number 2 was rescinded on appeal for all, leaving only #1. This is now the 4th time that one, ChildofMidnight, has violated Prohibition #1. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allstarecho

Whatever is decided here, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee should be updated to reflect such. This would help with any confusion.

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Why not review at a more appropriate time - specifically, 6 months after the topic ban has expired? Whether there is a need, or not, for the extra 6 months of 1RR to continue in the area of conflict, can be clarified at that time (when it's more relevant). I don't understand why there is a sense of urgency to know now, when it's possible that it (or a harsher or a less restrictive sanction) potentially may be re-imposed closer to that time anyway. Alternatively, closer to that time, there might not be a need for it. On the ever-growing list of things-to-do for ArbCom, this probably is one of the simplest ones to answer: no action until 5 months after topic ban has expired. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • If merging remedy 9 and 9.2 together (also 10 and 10.2) would help then I'd not have a problem. Whatever is the case, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey are both topic banned from all Obama-related articles for 6 months. After the 6 months are expired then both users are restricted to not revert more than 1 revert per week for a whole year. Both restrictions cover 18 months. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer the question on the dates, they're not reset, so they still started at the end of the case. On this one, I doubled checked and actually wrote it as meaning to be concurrent, i.e. topic ban and 1rr 6 months (in case the former was lifted), then 1rr the next six months. I will defer to my fellow arbs on how they interpreted this restriction though. Wizardman 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I did not actively participate in this case, I have since reviewed it in detail. It is the usual practice that remedies run concurrently, not serially, unless specified in the remedy itself. I concur with Wizardman's interpretation. Risker (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the time period would be concurrent, with the 1rr happening for 6 more months after the topic ban ends. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=310649307"