This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Nyttend ( talk) at 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This relates to the enforcement section
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Just curious, do we ever impose short bans like this anymore? Should this be interpreted as "may be briefly blocked"? The guy's de-facto banned (indef-blocked in early 2009 after tons of WP:IDHT), but the socks keep appearing (see the block log for Khamis Mushat), so I figured it couldn't hurt to get a little clarification.
Should Rktect (talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.". Dougweller ( talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
There needs to be a clarification on the Latin American history topic ban. History is a very broad topic. A prior clarification request discussion showed there was plenty of troubles with the broadness of the ban and its inherent lack of precision. Please see ( [2]), where Brad writes, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." The result here was that "recent history" was excluded from the topic ban.
The topic ban's lack of precision recently caused me to get into a minor block incident over a football article (see [3]). The first block incident was caused by inaccurate interpretation of the TBAN exception's "vandalism clause".
To summarize this request into questions:
Additional relevant evidence (from my part):
In response to Sandstein, the Chile-Peru football rivalry is an ongoing event. To claim that it "is entirely about past events" is a terrible premise that dismantles the whole argument and conclusion. This is also why the unblock request was accepted by the community. Per WP:TBAN: "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." The "history" section in Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly delimited. That the article is a badly written one also does not help the case made against me.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The last clarification request resulted in a statement from the Committee that events in or after December 1983 are not "history" for the purposes of this topic ban. So the edit that led to the block [6] - reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 to an article that is primarily about sports - was not in any way I can conceive of covered by the topic ban.
Accordingly I would suggest that the topic ban be explicitly refined to:
For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of History of Argentina about events in or after December 1983 would not be. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.
weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban, breaching it only in unclear gray areas:
“ | ... I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing any article related to anything that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything. | ” |
And as a final side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. Any article that deals with the history of the region should be and is covered under the topic ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all, MarshalN20 is not requesting an amendment of the case, but a clarification on the actual limits of the case as it is. The previous block was caused precisely by a misunderstanding on the extension of it, so the clarification request is appropiate, and it is precisely meant to avoid further troubles. In fact, I suggested him to request this clarification, I thought that if the limits are clear for everybody then there will be less of those discussions, or no such discussions at all. And there's no big need to link all the previous clarifications, amendments or enforcements of this case, because all those are already included at the case's main page or subpages anyway; arbitrators know where to seek them.
First, the topics. I think that "history" means the topics that we can seriously expect to find in a book named "History of Argentina", "History of Peru", or similar. The main topics that such books talk about are warfare, in the periods when the country is at war, and politics, when the country is at peace. With both terms broadly construed: in this context politics would mean anything that is related to the governance of a country (including economy, international relations, social rights, etc.), and warfare would mean anything that is related to conflicts between military factions (including ships or military hardware, cancelled or proposed military operations, etc.). If it is clarified this way, then we can be more certain if an article about a football rivalry (or any other topic that may arise) is included in the ban or not.
And second, the frontier between current things and history. It was said during the block discussion (I forgot where or by whom) that the 1983 limit is only for Argentine history, and did not apply to other countries. That is correct: when that clarification was requested, I declined to clarify a year for the whole of latin america, because contemporary latin american history was not among my interests anyway. And 1983 was selected because it's a natural turning point in Argentina, as it was described by then; but it is meaningless for the other countries. I don't think there's such a meaningful event for the whole continent, so to keep it close to the limit that has already been decided for Argentina, we can set the limit in the begining of the 1980s (January 1, 1980). The turning of a decade should be a good universal turning point. Of course, that would leave some articles half-allowed and half-banned (such as the National Reorganization Process), but I would simply avoid such articles. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been notified as the administrator who made the two most recent enforcement blocks. Because I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about whether a topic ban is needed to prevent misconduct by MarshalN20, and if yes, how broad that topic ban should be. But in the cases raised in an enforcement context, as listed by The ed17, I've observed that MarshalN20 has repeatedly violated or tested the boundaries of their topic ban. It's up to the Committee to decide which if any conclusions should be drawn from this history of noncompliance.
If I were a member of the Committee, I'd be concerned that by deciding to lift the block I imposed on MarshalN20 for editing Chile-Peru football rivalry (in my view, pretty clearly an "article ...related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed" as per the terms of the topic ban), the participants in the noticeboard discussion may de facto have already modified (in the sense requested here by MarshalN20) or vacated the Committee-imposed topic ban, in violation of the principle that Arbitration Committee decisions are binding ( WP:AP). This raises the question whether the procedure documented at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions requires amendment to prevent this sort of "appeal to the community" against Committee decisions (in the context of their enforcement), which is not envisioned by the community-adopted arbitration policy. Sandstein 15:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that too many administrators go around looking for excuses to block or ban other editors, and Sandstein is one of the worst of those. (Redacted) he ought to be banned from the arbitration enforcement cock pit nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following this discussion closely, so perhaps I have misread things, however, if Sandstein has blocked Lecen while his block of MarshallN120 is under discussion, then that doesn't appear wise. The arbitration enforcement should have been left to someone else. DrKiernan ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Having worked elbow-to-elbow with both MarshallN120 and Lecen, I'm happy to see someone is finally addressing Lecen, whose attitude and belligerence were quite a pain in my petusky when I was FAC delegate. I don't understand why MarshallN120 can't work on soccer articles, and my experience with Lecen indicates he's unlikely to adapt his behavior(s) with anything short of blocks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be yet another case where Sandstein's enforcement of arbitration remedies is clearly problematic. I think the Arbs should consider that aspect of the question as well. Either bar him from enforcing arbitration remedies altogether or restrict him so that he at least cannot act unilaterally when enforcing them. He does seem to avoid some of the more egregious problems when other admins are there to rein in his excesses.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As I stated on AN/ANI, because the lead of the soccer rivalry article clearly asserts that the important of that rivalry comes from history (not sports history). In fact, one could argue that without that importance/notability statement, this article would not necessarily exist. As it was patently obvious that this article was related to Latin American history, and thus was subject to the topic ban, even though the article was primarily about soccer. ES &L 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is clearly how broadly "broadly construed" should be construed.
I suggest the current standard of "Six Degrees of Separation" is untenable, and that therefore the term ought to be finally deprecated.
I suggest "reasonably and directly related to the case giving rise to the restriction" is a far more logical wording. Postulate a person barred from all articles relating to "American History" -- "broadly construed" would clearly apply to "The Beatles" as referring to a "British invasion" by one using the "broadly construed" standard. And those who insist that all violations should be treated in a draconian manner (as the Queen of Hearts once said "Off with their head!") are confusing the trees with the forest. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Further comment: The proposed motion still retains "broadly construed" which conflicts with the wording "directly related" on the same motion. It is not logical to have conflicting criteria in the same sentence. The motion ought be better phrased as
Which would avoid the "broadly construed" potential misuse. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Referring to User:The ed17 above and the reference to the first month long block under this broadly construed topic ban. It would be informative to put this into context:
I note that in the case of the first block, the editor was blocked in what is effectively a punitive manner after they had already realised and acknowledged an error on their part. I don't see this block as defensible.
In the second block, which was for two months based on a presumption of recidivism following the first, User:MarshalN20 was editing the football-related article Chile–Peru football rivalry. That there is a reference to the War of the Pacific in the lede, lead to a block under the broadly construed nature of the topic ban. In this case, I have difficulty seeing a block as defensible with the application of WP:COMMON, though given the poor wording in the original topic ban perhaps it is a grey area. I am encouraged my interpretation was correct as arbcom members have indicated below that they don't consider the topic ban extended to the article that led to the second block.
Two issues are being raised here.
I would suggest that rather than referring to Latin America in totality, the wording is revised to cover only those areas relevant to the arbcom case. I would suggest the topic ban should be revised to be specifically related to Argentine history prior to December 1980 or whatever date arbcom sees fit. I would also suggest this is contingent on all parties in the case restrict themselves to a 1RR restriction and find themselves a mentor as their behaviour has been far from optimal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Common sense is useful if it is informed. The suggestion that international sports rivalry, especially in the Western World, is a priori not a history topic seems uninformed (see Greek Games) -- moreover, here in an article (the one under discussion) that prominently discusses the geopolitical background. If this committee wants a narrower ban -- it is its responsibility to make it narrower. Don't blame others. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not all that familiar with the original case, though I believe I was marginally involved in the content dispute resolution history, so what I am about to say may be wholly irrelevant. In regard to Motion 1, some care might need to be exerted in regard the term "geopolitical" in order to avoid further ambiguity. For something to be geopolitical, it generally has to have a geographic component or influence, not just be limited by geography (i.e. limited to Latin America). Just "political" might work better. You might also want to be careful of the phrase "of Latin America," especially with the "broadly construed" dropped, as this could be read to only include topics affecting all of Latin America (especially since "geopolitics" suggests an international or regional subject matter). I know that you're trying to cut the scope of this remedy down, but you don't want to go too narrow, either. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just passing through. I can see what you're trying to do with Motion #2, but it encapsulates a principle which is already an explicit part of WP:TBAN ("Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.") The language and examples at WP:TBAN are quite clear.
My concern is that you may be inviting future confusion and conflict as administrators at AE are left to try to divine your intent in not simply relying on the explicit provisions of WP:TBAN in this particular remedy (or worse, to try to guess how the absence of this specific additional emphasis and endorsement should affect the interpretation of all other topic ban remedies to which you have not – yet – added this particular language).
If the Committee is concerned that there are specific instances in which the provisions of WP:TBAN have not been properly interpreted or applied, then feel free to address that as needed—but don't go rewriting or restating extant policies as a remedy. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, if, for the purposes of this restriction, we define "history" as "an umbrella term that relates to past events", we end up concluding that almost every article on Wikipedia is covered by this topic ban; in this, I agree with Marshal: even the article about the banana has a history section. And I also agree with Thryduulf that the article in question appears to be mainly about sports, even if it contains a history section, and that reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 should not have been considered a violation of Marshal's restriction.
For these reasons, I support the proposal to tweak the wording of the restriction, so that it is more consistent with what we intended to prohibit in the first place (or, to be more precise, with what I think we wanted to prohibit when we originally imposed the topic) – and, so, pilfering Thryduulf's wording, I'd clarify that, for the purposes of this restriction, the term "history" should be interpreted as referring to a. the geopolitical, economic and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and b. any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic or military events that occurred before December 1983 (or a different date, considering we only granted the 1983 exemption wrt Argentine history).
Finally, an editor who is banned from interacting with another may not make comments, either directly or indirectly, about him anywhere, for any reason, except to report a violation of the restriction, to ask for a clarification of or to appeal the ban. Lecen's comments, therefore, are a violation of his restriction and I'm about to ask the clerks to remove them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
For reference, the relevant remedy relating to MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is:
2) MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
Proposed:
Proposed:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Fram ( talk) at 07:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Richard Arthur Norton got three sanctions and one admonishment, all intended to stop his copyright violations. Strangely enough, no actual sanction for making copyright violations in the mainspace was included, although the admonishment said "He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing."
Since then, he hasn't edited a lot until very recently, when he started creating a lot of articles in his userspace, mostly related to subjects where the sources are from 1915 or thereabouts, and the chance of copyright violations is smaller. He has also edited the mainspace, and when he strayed into more recent events, he again immediately created a copyright violation, following the text and structure of the source much too closely. It's not a large one, but it is worrying. Is this sanctionable under the ArbCom cae admonishment, or does it need standard admin sanctions?
Richard's full text (with link to the source):
Copyrighted source [19]:
@SilkTork: no, my request here was more about "if you violate a restriction, you get reported at AE; but if you violate an admonishment (which was the basis for the restrictions, and which has a block threat in it), where do you get reported? No problem in taking it to AE (or AN or ANI or whatever), but it wasn't clear to me where this was supposed to go. Fram ( talk) 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@RAN: first, there was no indication in your post that you were restoring older content, which is itself problematic. I didn't check whether you reinserted some older post made by someone else, why would I? Anyway, if you reinsert text, you take responsability for it. Claiming that because Alansohn didn't remove it as a copyright violation, you were free to reinsert it is not a valid defense. But in this case, it is worse, you didn't simply resinsert it, you added the source, so you should have seen that the text you reinserted and the source were basically identical. If you are not able to spot such similarities when sourcing two sentences to a short article, then we have a problem. If you did spot the similarities but didn't see a problem with them, then you have an even bigger problem. Fram ( talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@All: At User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#File:Boelckeo.JPG, where I warned RAN about a technical violation of his restrictions, which I didn't bring here (something which was not really appreciated however), he compared me to Javert ("You certainly are the Javert of Wikipedia."), which I considered a personal attack and stated as much in my replies there. For him to repeat this here, in his reply, repeatedly, is unacceptable behaviour. I try to make comments about the edits, not the editor, and certainly not in such a deliberately provocative manner. Can someone remind RAN that such comments are not acceptable? Fram ( talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@NE Ent: don't be daft. When you add a quote in quotes, with the source, then you aren't making a copyright violation (if it short and relevant for the discussion, as it was here). I didn't claim the text as my own: RAN did. Please don't disrupt ArbCom pages to make an incorrect point, like you did here. I've reverted your change. Fram ( talk) 07:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Javert User:Fram is 1/3 correct.
User:Commander edit on December 3, 2013 added "In the 2011 American superhero film 'Captain America: The First Avenger' as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey." It was deleted as unreferenced by User:Alansohn. It was not deleted as a copyright violation.
I then restored it and added the reference in this edit on December 3, 2013. If User:Alansohn had deleted it as a copyright violation and not as unreferenced, I would not have restored it. Kudos for User:Javert User:Fram for detecting it, but it would be nice if he showed the whole story of the edit. Instead he showed 1/3 of three edits in succession, as a "gotcha" moment, to get me banned from Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@Hobit: Don't forget where he recently warned me after I adjusted the contrast on an image already loaded in Wikipedia. It is clear there is animosity and he wants to get me permanently banned and has been working toward that goal ever since I had my first run-in with him at AFD several years ago. I think an interaction ban would be in the best interest of both of us. That way he can spend more time editing and less time watching every edit I make. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: If you think Patch Media is an unreliable news source, you should work to have it blacklisted. Patch media is a hyperlocal news outlet owned by AOL. The writers are underpaid, but payed, and there is editorial vetting of articles. It is not a personal blog. And of course, anyone who saw the movie would recognize that is correct and not in need of a retraction by Patch. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad - I don't quite see how you can agree with both SilkTork's and Salvio's comments as they appear to me to be somewhat contradictory. Could you explicate?> Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of these fleeting references to a place, usually of the sort that reads "On Glee, Adam Lambert's character, Elliott 'Starchild' Gilbert mentioned that he was originally from Paramus, NJ", which I removed in this edit. A statement about Captain America had been added several times, which I removed each time as an unsourced fleeting mention( see here, here for a few recent examples). Most recently, it had been reinserted here. After I had removed it (yet again) here, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reinserted the material in this edit, finally adding the reliable and verifiable source needed to support the claim, one that specifically mentions the movie and associates it directly with Paramus. I was still wary, but I looked at the source and came to the conclusion that it supported the statement. If I had felt that it hadn't been an appropriate source, I would have removed it; It was appropriately reliable and verifiable. I read the source word for word and if I had thought there was a WP:COPYVIO issue, I would have removed it; I didn't see a COPYVIO issue. User:Fram's analysis shows that there is some overlap between the source and the material that had been added to the article, but this is at worst a close paraphrase, and the close paraphrase was by User:Commander edit. RAN's actions were intended to add the source that I had specifically indicated as missing, and if I hadn't deleted the edit as unsourced there would be zero issue here; RAN would have only been adding the source, not assuming responsibility for Commander edit's edit with what may be a close paraphrase. I do understand how an editor could see this as a copyright violation or a violation of arbitration terms, but having been personally responsible for the edit that effectively burdened RAN with the claim of a COPYVIO issue, this was not in any way an effort by RAN to insert material in violation of a copyright, but rather appears clearly to me to be an effort to finally add a source to the article for a claim that had been added over and over again without one. RAN deserves credit both for his efforts to address the concerns raised via arbitration and for his efforts to add appropriate references to an unsourced statement. That the two issues sadly overlap and combine in one claimed incident is at worst an inadvertent reinsertion of someone else's possible close paraphrase, and is simply not the type of COPYVIO that is relevant to the arbitration enforcement. Alansohn ( talk) 16:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't care about copyright to the extent many Wikipedians seem to. It's not going to be "The end of Wikipedia." (Fair use, no economic damages necessary to win a case in court, DMCA...)
But if RAN's reversion with a source of a close paraphrase is an inadvertent copyvio, logically Fram's copypaste of the full quote is an intentional one. (I've removed it; will be interesting to see if any reverts the removal and what justification they provide.). NE Ent 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm running on very little sleep, but I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. First, while NE Ent's point about Fram's copywrite violation was perhaps meant tongue-in-cheek, it does bring up a very relevant point. Fram quoted the article in it's entirety to make his point and no one batted an eye. If it were a 2 page document, I think folks would have rather rapidly redacted it (and I doubt Fram would have done any such thing). But no one (other than NE Ent) seemed to mind even though the case for fair use is much weaker here--there's no way all the points of WP:NFCC are met here. I'd argue that it's because it is such a short quote.
There is serious discussion about sanctioning someone for that short a quote which was simply restored. We've got a respected editor who reviewed the edit and saw nothing amiss either. Shall we sanction him also? He too checked the source.
I feel that RAN is 24601. Yes he broke the law. But now he is being persecuted for things when others (Fram in this case) are doing even worse things in front of ARBCOM. The point isn't that Fram has done anything horribly wrong, the point is that what Fram did is in every way worse (entire article directly quoted, not in article space, etc.) and no one cared. It's like yelling at someone for talking too loud in a library.
And Fram wasn't aware that RAN was restoring text from another editor when he brought this case here. Fram has been stalking RANs edits. He's prodded a disambiguation page in the last couple of weeks when he only found because RAN had created it. I'd urge the committee to direct Fram to stop following RAN's edits--if there is a problem, someone else will notice. Fram is following around someone who is effectively on probation just waiting for him to screw up and breathing down his neck. This isn't helpful and it boarders upon harassment. Long ago I asked Fram to stop following RAN around (years ago?). This isn't something anyone should have to put up with. Fram is by-and-large a reasonable person, but when it comes to RAN everything seems to get blown out of proportion. It's quite plain that he'd prefer RAN be banned. If someone followed all of your edits that closely, they'd find something problematic. And you'd get frustrated as heck.
I've tried to run a wikistalk tool to identify the interactions and I'm not being successful (things are very slow, perhaps because these editors both have a massive number of edits). Perhaps someone else can get it to work.
Sorry for the rant (did I mention I haven't slept much?), but this has been a problem years in the building and it needs to be addressed. Hobit ( talk) 09:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Xenophrenic ( talk) at 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am presently "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed." I have recently edited the James O'Keefe biography article, which I obviously do not see as falling under this restriction since O'Keefe has no relation to the Tea Party. My edits were also wholly unrelated to the Tea Party. However, another editor raised the question on the O'Keefe talk page which has prompted me to cease editing that article until I obtain clarification here. Please note: I see the phrase "Tea Party" does briefly appear elsewhere in the O'Keefe article, and I have no desire to circumvent the ArbCom case restrictions even inadvertantly, so I have to ask...
This is where the "broadly construed" phrasing can get tricky. O'Keefe may not be "officially" assosciated with the Tea Party, but his mentor was Andrew Breitbart and his activities are pretty clearly aligned with the goals and values of the Tea Party. If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As the "other editor" in question, this is actually good guidance for those of us on the periphery. In this case, I raised the question not to get anyone in trouble (and I would hope that any admin/arb reading this would see it for what it is and not an attempt by Xenophrenic to skirt the boundaries of the ArbCom case), but because of this specific section in the article, which is about a video release noteworthy because of the NPR associate's comments on the Tea Party movement.
Looking back at the original case, it appears that ArbCom chose not to address the question of what "broadly construed" means. For the sake of reducing inter-editorial strife, I'm hoping some sort of guidance can come of this clarification request.
"Tea Party" is often used in daily conversation in America imprecisely and usually pejoratively to indicate anyone sufficiently the right of American politics. The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts. James O'Keefe would seem to not qualify on that end, except that one of his major claims to fame is a video he released of an NPR executive speaking candidly about the Tea Party. Since the topic ban is on "all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" (emphasis added), the presence of the topic as a component of the article on James O'Keefe, activist, renders the Wikipedia-en page James O'Keefe under the topic ban. This is why topic bans are best written as editing subject bans and not page bans. I suggest that the Committee clarify or amend the wording of the topic ban to apply to edits concerning the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, and that the edits in question be allowed, although I think Xenophrenic is better advised to steer clear because of the specific history of O'Keefe's activism -- Tznkai ( talk) 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
flies squarely in the face of what "broadly construed" clearly means. Although, obviously, that phrase is (deliberately) imprecise, any clarification of its meaning to come from the committee must cast the widest possible net, and not be hamstrung by restrictive definitions such as Tznkai's. In this case, the "Tea Party" should include everyone Tzankai mentioned, as well as all those people to whom it is applied in the common understanding of its meaning.The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts
The goal here is not to make some kind of socio-political point, but to reduce disturbance in the editing environment. To schieve that, "broadly construed" must mean what it says. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If the general public or the press use "Tea Party" to describe a certain person, they do so because it seems to fit the person's attitude, behavior or politics, regardless of whatever their "official" status is. Such a person is more than likely to create the same possibility of disputatious editing, and should, therefore, be included in the "broadly construed" definition, which is, again, a definition to be used in regard to editing behavior only. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by RexxS ( talk) at 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I seek clarification of the remedy Editors reminded
5) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this remedy meant to have effect? Today, following > discussion on the talk page, I restored an infobox to Deepika Padukone with an edit summary explaining my edit:
With no further discussion, Dr. Blofeld reverted my edit with edit summary:
And followed that up with utterly inapropriate comments at the talk page.:
Apart from the blatant OWNERSHIP, this behaviour directly contravenes the remedy, requiring editors to "maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes". Is the remedy meant to be taken seriously? If so, then why should I have to be subjected to these sort of remarks? It remains impossible to discuss infoboxes in a civilised manner with these people - just as I explained during the case.
I also seek guidance: If there is no means to enforce the ArbCom remedy, then the case has merely emboldened those who dislike infoboxes and given them licence to attack good-faith editors with impunity, rendering discussion futile once more. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Look folks, this request of mine has now reached the point where it's generating more heat than light. These sort of procedings bring out the worst in me and I apologise to Blofeld and Carcharoth for being far too blunt in my replies to them.
I have now seen many more opinions on the general issue of being able to discuss infoboxes in a calm and collegial atmosphere and I am encouraged at last.
As for specifics:
Could we wrap this up now and spare a few more innocent electrons? Please? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
New ArbCom should look at this. Dr Blofeld's statement is utterly unacceptable. I don't care who he's friends with, there's no excuse for that. I think this should be dealt with summarily and harshly.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
As to the edits reported here, I agree with Wehwalt that they are unacceptable and should result in a rapid sanction. I'd issue a block myself under normal admin authority, but I am not sure whether I am preempted from doing so by the fact that the Committee has now been seized of this request for clarification. Sandstein 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
If you view the history of the Peter Sellers ( here) and John Le Mesurier talk pages you'll see why infobox pushers highly frustrate me and this recent action on another of my FAs is really making me fed up with this website. Perhaps my reaction was strong if you look at it without understanding my previous battles with fighting infobox pushers but I'm fed up of writing FA articles and us editors agreeing on no infobox and then people like Rexx coming along and providing false edit summaries as if the infobox contains masses of useful data. At 18:21 on 28 December 2013 I stated "We decided that it had nothing of value and looked better without it. Infoboxes are not compulsory you know." on the talk page. Just 2 hours 12 m later, innocent Rexx comes along and imposes an infobox ignoring clear consensus and obviously being aware of the discussion, violating what you decided here. My edit summary reverting him, "bullshit", I take as meaning "nonsense" in response to his claim that the infobox was full of useful data for mobile readers when in reality its virtually empty. My response on the talk page did not contain personal attacks, rather an expression of contempt at the Nazi-like cult which exists on the website trying to force infoboxes on every article and told him to do something more useful. I very rarely add or revert infoboxes and care little for the nonsense associated with them so I really don't see the point in pursuing this further. I apologise if Rexx was upset with what I said, but I feel I was more than justified given the circumstances and my history with dealing with infobox pushers.
Response to Wehwalt: Harshly? And the point of that would be? It would achieve what exactly? If you're to block/ban me for dismissing an edit summary which implies that something is of great benefit which is in violation of your "civilty" rules as "bullshit" as if that's a gross personal attack or something, then Rexx is equally guilty of violating your rules on infobox enforcement and blatantly ignoring the consensus on the talk page. It would be double standards wouldn't it? Blocking me or banning me from infoboxes will not stop uncivil discussions taking place over infoboxes. I've been civil in the actual discussions about infoboxes aside from my initial explanation of annoyance over the matter and have tried to make some constructive suggestions on how to include an infobox which has more value. The real issue lies much deeper and it's one I believe/hope will be resolved at some point with infoboxes being controlled by wiki data.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Response to Wehwalt, you mean my comparison of infobox enforcement to Nazism? Yes I'll strike that, I personally wouldn't find it offensive but I can see how some might. My point was that there seems to be some sort of obsession with adding infoboxes and editors seem intent on brutally enforcing them upon every article even when editors agree on not wanting them. I assumed that Rexx was one of the infobox enforcing regulars. It seems he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he ignored what we stated was agreed on the talk page and turned up and tried to enforce an infobox. If he wanted a collegiate atmosphere and to be treated amicably he should have simply joined in the discussion first and should have avoided what he surely would have known would be a controversial change... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@David Fuchs. Ownership? Editors who naturally put in hours/day/weeks of hard toil on articles, take them to GA and then FA and bother to promote them are naturally going to feel that they have had more input that most others editors and feel protective of them. That doesn't mean that we'll revert every edit made to it. Don't confuse claims of authorship with ownership.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Response to Wehwalt:My perception of the situation was that like with the Sellers article the infobox "enforcers" have sort of like a cell operation on here and are often aware of where disputes are taking place. You'll get people turning up trying to force infoboxes during disputes and them being reverted. I assumed that Rexx had read my "infoboxes are not compulsory and we agreed that no infobox looks better given the lack of info" and purposefully come along and added an infobox to assert that infoboxes are a necessity and override the preferences of the article editors. I think it was the fact he came along just 2 hours after I said that and added one I assumed him to be some infobox Nazi. I found it disrespectful that my assertion on the talk page of the situation was directly overridden in such a short space of time and in my revert or comment being ultra nice and respectful to him given the circumstances wasn't exactly my first thought. As Rexx says though we've spoken by email and we both agree that it isn't constructive to continue this arb case and won't get to the root of the problem and that discussion in a civil fashion should continue elsewhere.
My biggest concern overall is that this infobox issue has become a major site problem with the disputes and time wasting which can cause unnecessary inflammation and actions. I agree with what the arb decided on infobox issues but in practice this often doesn't work. The majority seem to support infoboxes, however seemingly empty they are and seem to see it as an essential piece of furniture, and as with the Sellers article and other, infoboxes typically end up being added regardless of whether the people who wrote the whole article want one. Given the basic cleanup work which is needed in most articles it's a time sink which is causing editors to leave or storm out in despair, zapping any energy or enthusiasm for the project they have left. I have a feeling that at some point infobox data will be controlled by wikidata and there'll be an option of whether to hide them or not and such disputes will become history at some point, but it might be too late and we'll lose more valuable editors in the meantime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by NE Ent at 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The absolute binary nature of this remedy has put the AE community in the awkward position of either ignoring or imposing a severe remedy for what is arguably a minor, perhaps unintentional, infraction of the revert restriction remedy of the case. Please see applicable AE discussion. The committee should either just go ahead and impose the ban, or empower the admins at the AE to use their judgement as to whether the remedy is appropriate in a particular context. NE Ent 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
A splendid example of the "law of unintended consequences." Fixable simply by changing will be to may be and adding after discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. Sorter wording and wording which well ought to be adopted by ArbCom in similar cases in future. Collect ( talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm commenting here as an administrator who has also commented about the currently open enforcement request. I didn't follow the original case and have no opinion about whether the Committee's remedy that provides for an automatic topic ban of RosylnSKP in the event of a block is appropriate or not. That is for the Committee to determine, although I would find it surprising if the Committee were to change its mind so soon about a case it decided just a week ago.
Procedurally, I find this request by an editor who has no apparent reason to make it, because they are neither an administrator nor personally involved in the case, unhelpful. It adds an additional complication to processing the open enforcement request. This is not the first time that this forum has been used to preempt or influence an ongoing enforcement proceeding, which makes the enforcement process even more complicated and time-consuming. I recommend that the Committee considers under which if any circumstances it wants to accept amendment requests pertaining to decisions that are in the process of being enforced, and that it clarifies whether such requests mean that ongoing enforcement proceedings should be suspended (which, absent rules to that effect, I assume is not the case). Sandstein 11:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether contingent sanctions such as this one are in principle a good idea is a different question, about which I don't really have an opinion. I suppose it depends on the case and the editors involved. Sandstein 17:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Initial statement (on the content dispute)
|
---|
Commenting here not as an arbitrator (I recused on the case itself), but as someone who has a passing knowledge of the some of the history here: the underlying content matter looks to be extremely complex. As far as I can tell, the use of both the terms Ottoman and Turkish is valid in such articles, as long as those terms are used correctly. But to use them correctly requires a solid understanding of the politics and history of the region. One of the books I'm reading at the moment is A Peace to End All Peace - The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Fromkin, 1989). That is by no means definitive, and there are obviously a multitude of sources that can be consulted, but the key point is that both terms can be used in the same article as long as you use them correctly (the fact that multiple academic sources use both terms depending on the context should make that clear). I think the idea that you have to use one term to the exclusion of the other on one article, or even use them interchangeably, is wrong, and that wasn't emphasised enough in the MILHIST discussions, and the arbitration case may have missed some of the more subtle points of this altogether. The key is to understand the sources and use the terms correctly. I understand that arbitration cases focus on conduct, but I'm making this statement in the hope that those editing such articles, and also those carrying out arbitration enforcement, don't draw the conclusion from the arbitration case that the underlying content matter is a simple one. Some editors do, or may, need to be excluded from the discussions, but more discussion of the content issues here will be needed at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Given that this edit (which triggered Sandstein's action) can only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1, activating the topic ban seems entirely sensible. Which is a shame as I previously supported only issuing a strong warning or short duration block for the renewed edit warring. Nick-D ( talk) 10:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein's action—which seems reasonable to me, given the edit that triggered it and RoslynSKP's lack of response at AE (despite my best effort to avoid a block and automatic topic ban)—might make this moot. However, I'd just like to say that I'd prefer not to see admins' hands bound like that again. What we were faced with was a relatively minor breach of the applicable remedy. An indefinite topic ban for such a violation would normally be considered grossly disproportionate (and, if enacted unilaterally by an AE admin, would likely be reduced on appeal); a short block would be much more likely under ordinary circumstances. In this case, we were left with the choice of essentially letting RoslynSKP off, or triggering a disproportionate sanction that would not normally have been considered.
ArbCom: if it is your desire to remove somebody from a topic area, then, frankly, you are perfectly capable of doing that yourselves. If it is your desire to give an editor enough rope and hope they don't hang themselves with it, then please don't force AE admins to act as hangmen for a trivial misdemeanour. I endorse any proposed wording that gives admins just a little leeway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been aware of this discussion, but had not taken part because I simply don't understand much of what is discussed. Now I can't as its also blocked. I am just an editor trying to get through this. Until this block there has never been any indication that other edits which did not change the appellations would also be violations. I did not set out to argue for one above the other, and still resist that interpretation, but to clearly state what the note only alludes to. Nick-D's characterisation that it could "only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1" is completely wrong, and needs to be appreciated in the light of every other comment this editor has made since first contact. If the words of the Arbitration decision can be taken at face value then restriction 1 has not been violated as the appellations were not changed. If a much broader interpretation was implied then some indication of this should have been given to me.
I was about to log off when I got the link to [20] where I was relieved to find Carcharoth's attempt to put the complexities of the appellation question into some perspective, which MILHIST discussion completely failed to do. Mention must also be made of Neotarf's note in Carcharoth's link which claims articles were written by someone from a list of battle names [21], none of which were used in the three articles referred to and the lists of citations and references clearly demonstrate the error of claiming the articles were based on this one source. -- Rskp ( talk) 03:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I offered Roslyn some unsolicited free advice from an uninvolved editor here, which others may wish to be aware of. I share Carcharoth's surprise that a clean block log was not noted during the case, and also wonder whether it should not have been a factor considered by Sandstein in choosing the block length. Roslyn may not have the knowledge of blocks and sanctions that is typical of editors restricted by ArbCom. EdChem ( talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)at 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
The 2013 Arbitration case involving Tea Party movement resulted in topic bans for myself and the above named editors. I'd made an edit request at Gun control. It later occurred to me that gun control is an issue for some groups in the tea party movement. Since the topic ban states, "broadly construed," I'd like to know if this article would be considered among those that are to be avoided. The above named editors have all edited the article after the TPm topic ban. I've avoided all political articles as I do not wish to violate the ban in any way. Thank you.
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for the commonsense approach. That's an interesting analogy, but Amelia Earhardt didn't make Cookies a political issue. Apparently, the gun thing is a big issue for the tea party movement as well as certain constitutional amendments including the 2nd amendment, right to bear arms. I agree commonsense should be the guide, but when one is topic banned, it's best to ask first, edit second. Malke 2010 ( talk) 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad & Carcharoth: Thank you both. That is excellent advice. General topics okay, specific no. Best to stay away from everything until ban lifted. Malke 2010 ( talk) 03:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No, not covered If "gun control" is covered by the Tea Party topic ban, then all articles on every issue mentioned in any local Tea Party chapter's platform are similarly covered by the ban. That would be absurd. If I am banned from talking about Amelia Earhart, and I wish to edit Cookies, am I barred from doing so, since Earhart liked to bake cookies? Same difference. Discussion of an issue is not the same thing as discussion about a party that happnes to care about the issue. That said, one should steer clear of overtly party-related subsections, and I know that's dicey, but the world's an imperfect place. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that before assuming that the article in question has anything to do with the TPm, one might note that "tea party" occurs exactly zero times in that article. In fact "tea" occurs zero times in that article. I suggest that saying it is covered in any part by a ban on TPm is stretching the bungee cord to the breaking point, indeed. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The Paul Ryan case is interesting. It does not make any reference to him being directly connected with the TPm at all. The only "connection" is surmise in an AP article. The article is not listed in any TPm related categories whatsoever. North8000 made no edit remotely connected with the TPm on that BLP that I can find. So -- no real connection to TPm and the edits had absolutely no connection to the TPm means that side issue is grossly overstated here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of defining the Tea-Party topic ban, what about Paul Ryan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Ryan has been closely identified with the Tea Party and its agenda by, among others, the Associated Press ( "Tea party gets its man in Ryan for vice president"), the New York Times ( "Ryan Brings the Tea Party to the Ticket"), and CBS News ( "Why Tea Party senior citizens love Paul Ryan").
North8000 ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Tea-Party-related topics broadly construed. Yet North8000 is actively editing the article and talkpage, after being recruited by another editor to "enforce the consensus" [ sic] on the article. Does the Paul Ryan article fall under the umbrella of Tea-Party-related topics, broadly construed? MastCell Talk 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the views of the Committee members that have been stated so far. However, I think that it is worth considering (for the future, maybe, but maybe also for now) whether we made a mistake in making the topic ban so narrow. Might it have been a better choice to make the topic ban an American politics topic ban, or a "really, stop dancing around the edges of all this and go edit something about Mesopotamian architecture"-ban. After all, should we really expect someone who has been disruptive at Tea Party movement to be any better at John Cornyn or Libertarianism or BigGovernment.com? NW ( Talk) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
While the Tea Party movement deals with gun control, the topic of gun control is not limited to the Tea Party movement. So, for an editor to edit on gun control does not in any way mean they are editing in the area of the Tea Party movement. Surmise, and extending a sanction based on a surmise so that a sanction becomes sweeping is hardly fair or logical in my opinion. Per Floqquenbeam, the question should be specific. Does this article deal with the Tea Party movement specifically. If it takes the arbitration committee to clarify if it does or not, (and I so no evidence that it does), then the second question to ask is, did the editor know this article falls under Tea Party movement. Giving the editor the benefit of the doubt given even the arb committee is discussing this means, in my mind, the editor should be warned to be careful not sanctioned. But as I said in this case, there is no evidence that the article falls under Tea Party movement.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Fæ ( talk) at 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This request was first raised two months ago at AC/N link when I was advised to re-raise it here after the elections.
At the beginning of last year Arbcom accepted my appeal but at that point introduced the restrictions: [22]
I am requesting that the restrictions are lifted as not being of practical benefit to the project, in particular they are a key reason why I am avoiding offering my experience and volunteer time for training events or content creation projects that would improve the English Wikipedia. As an example of how difficult these broad restrictions are to comply with, in November 2013 I ran a one-off presentation and workshop with Kings College London as part of a UK "Women in Science" series of events [23]; these events are widely seen as a positive step by the Wikipedia community and a positive story by the global press with regard to addressing perceived systematic gender bias for Wikipedia content. During the event I created a stub [24] for Susan Lea, a professor of psychology at the college, as suggested by attendees, during the same event this was developed. It never occurred to me this may be an issue and it was only later that I realized that Lea's research covers sexual violence and rape.
Due to my past stressful experience of being harassed, I focused my volunteer time during 2013 on Wikimedia Commons, where I have uploaded over 160,000 photographs, and on request supported the Welsh Wikipedia where a continuing cooperative project has resulted in my uploading 2,700 requested book covers with 700 new articles about authors being created (some are authors on LGBT topics, though I have not created the articles). Apart from a handful of related image renames or behind the scenes OTRS work, I remained retired as a Wikipedian during 2013.
I have a long running interest in LGBT history and archives and I am at an informal exploratory discussion stage with a London college and planning to contact an independent library/archive I helped a few years ago, for a volunteer project I hope get off the ground in early 2014 (in advance of Wikimania 2014) that would help English Wikipedia content with media and previously unpublished source material, and could itself support the case for funding of an academic placement of a Wikipedian in Residence. I aim to get a proposal completed by February. By its nature a LGBT project would involve articles about events and living people (being from the 1950s to the current time) and LGBT material would be considered under the broad topic of sexuality.
Note, I have an approved project grant from WMUK [25] which supports Commons batch upload projects during 2014. Should there be a suitable opportunity to batch upload LGBT archive material, it is likely that it would be covered by the current grant.
I hope this request can be handled in a respectful way, especially considering the off-wiki attention that this topic tends to attract. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Fæ, I would recommend that if you wish to return to full editing on en.wp that you spend some time between now and march formulating a request to narrow the scope of your topic bans rather than removing them entirely. After at least 6-9 months of successfully working with no problems within those restrictions, the committee is more likely to look favourably on a further relaxation of restrictions or removing them entirely.
When you make that request (and don't make it shortly after midnight on the 1st) I suggest you focus on what you want to do, specifically, not what broad categories of material you might have worked on. "Sexuality" is a very broad topic, so there is scope for narrowing it. Identify something specific that you want to improve that is on the edge of the "Sexuality" topic area and propose a rewording of the article topic ban that leaves the core area you were sanctioned for within the scope but allows you to edit your proposed borderline articles. Propose also the addition of a second clause to the image ban along the lines of "excluding images directly related to X", where X is the article topic area you want to work on.
Once you have decided what you want to work on, get some edits to a related area that is outside the scope of the topic ban but which is adjacent to it. For example if you want to improve the coverage of living openly gay UK MPs, first improve an article like Nicholas Eden, 2nd Earl of Avon (died 1985, so clearly not a BLP subject), but make sure you don't work with images for the article. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of seeming rude/ungrateful Fæ, I'd suggest that the uploads to Commons you highlight in your request have had an undue emphasis on quantity over quality. I've recently been working with some of the IWM images you uploaded of British naval operations off Norway, and the fact that they were all uploaded as "File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War" followed by the relevant IWM catalogue number made them difficult to use. The minimal categorisation of the images you've been uploading also do not contribute to these images ever actually being used (for instance, you originally placed these IWM images in only the very broad "Royal Naval photographer" category, and images of aircraft you uploaded in November were placed only in a category for the airport, and not the plane type/serial number which is typically a much more useful classification). While your work in uploading all these images is clearly very valuable and contributed to "my" most recent FA ( Operation Tungsten) and what I hope will be my next GA ( Operation Mascot), the lack of basic follow through with categorisation to encourage their use raises some concerns in my mind (quite possibly unfairly) about how carefully you'd edit BLPs as it is suggestive of an attitude of prioritising "adding stuff" over "adding useful stuff". In short, I'd suggest that as part of the next unban request you be in a stronger position to demonstrate the quality of your contributions, and not just the quantity of them. Nick-D ( talk) 11:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
During the arbitration I commented that people interpreting outing policy focused too much on whether personal information was literally secret, as opposed to whether "opposition research" bringing it up at every opportunity was improper. My argument was rejected at the time, yet ArbCom has since changed course - ironically enough, in regard to someone with an opposing opinion during the Fae arbitration - finding that unduly focusing on another user's personal information was indeed highly inappropriate. [28] I might even say that decision has gone too far the other way. Given the decisive change in how this policy is interpreted, I think it is quite appropriate to consider an early end to a topic ban based on it. Wnt ( talk) 07:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Nyttend ( talk) at 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This relates to the enforcement section
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Just curious, do we ever impose short bans like this anymore? Should this be interpreted as "may be briefly blocked"? The guy's de-facto banned (indef-blocked in early 2009 after tons of WP:IDHT), but the socks keep appearing (see the block log for Khamis Mushat), so I figured it couldn't hurt to get a little clarification.
Should Rktect (talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.". Dougweller ( talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
There needs to be a clarification on the Latin American history topic ban. History is a very broad topic. A prior clarification request discussion showed there was plenty of troubles with the broadness of the ban and its inherent lack of precision. Please see ( [2]), where Brad writes, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." The result here was that "recent history" was excluded from the topic ban.
The topic ban's lack of precision recently caused me to get into a minor block incident over a football article (see [3]). The first block incident was caused by inaccurate interpretation of the TBAN exception's "vandalism clause".
To summarize this request into questions:
Additional relevant evidence (from my part):
In response to Sandstein, the Chile-Peru football rivalry is an ongoing event. To claim that it "is entirely about past events" is a terrible premise that dismantles the whole argument and conclusion. This is also why the unblock request was accepted by the community. Per WP:TBAN: "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." The "history" section in Chile-Peru football rivalry is clearly delimited. That the article is a badly written one also does not help the case made against me.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 17:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The last clarification request resulted in a statement from the Committee that events in or after December 1983 are not "history" for the purposes of this topic ban. So the edit that led to the block [6] - reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 to an article that is primarily about sports - was not in any way I can conceive of covered by the topic ban.
Accordingly I would suggest that the topic ban be explicitly refined to:
For example a 2010 book about the War of the Pacific would be covered by the topic ban, sections of History of Argentina about events in or after December 1983 would not be. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.
weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
This is yet another example of Marshal trying to neuter this topic ban, which was "broadly construed" to forestall these exact issues. There have been several previous enforcement and clarification requests that Marshal has chosen not to link. These show a clear pattern of skirting the topic ban, breaching it only in unclear gray areas:
“ | ... I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing any article related to anything that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything. | ” |
And as a final side note, trying to litigate individual sections of articles Marshal can edit is preposterous unless we want to be back at ANI in a week. Any article that deals with the history of the region should be and is covered under the topic ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all, MarshalN20 is not requesting an amendment of the case, but a clarification on the actual limits of the case as it is. The previous block was caused precisely by a misunderstanding on the extension of it, so the clarification request is appropiate, and it is precisely meant to avoid further troubles. In fact, I suggested him to request this clarification, I thought that if the limits are clear for everybody then there will be less of those discussions, or no such discussions at all. And there's no big need to link all the previous clarifications, amendments or enforcements of this case, because all those are already included at the case's main page or subpages anyway; arbitrators know where to seek them.
First, the topics. I think that "history" means the topics that we can seriously expect to find in a book named "History of Argentina", "History of Peru", or similar. The main topics that such books talk about are warfare, in the periods when the country is at war, and politics, when the country is at peace. With both terms broadly construed: in this context politics would mean anything that is related to the governance of a country (including economy, international relations, social rights, etc.), and warfare would mean anything that is related to conflicts between military factions (including ships or military hardware, cancelled or proposed military operations, etc.). If it is clarified this way, then we can be more certain if an article about a football rivalry (or any other topic that may arise) is included in the ban or not.
And second, the frontier between current things and history. It was said during the block discussion (I forgot where or by whom) that the 1983 limit is only for Argentine history, and did not apply to other countries. That is correct: when that clarification was requested, I declined to clarify a year for the whole of latin america, because contemporary latin american history was not among my interests anyway. And 1983 was selected because it's a natural turning point in Argentina, as it was described by then; but it is meaningless for the other countries. I don't think there's such a meaningful event for the whole continent, so to keep it close to the limit that has already been decided for Argentina, we can set the limit in the begining of the 1980s (January 1, 1980). The turning of a decade should be a good universal turning point. Of course, that would leave some articles half-allowed and half-banned (such as the National Reorganization Process), but I would simply avoid such articles. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been notified as the administrator who made the two most recent enforcement blocks. Because I didn't follow the original case, I don't have an opinion about whether a topic ban is needed to prevent misconduct by MarshalN20, and if yes, how broad that topic ban should be. But in the cases raised in an enforcement context, as listed by The ed17, I've observed that MarshalN20 has repeatedly violated or tested the boundaries of their topic ban. It's up to the Committee to decide which if any conclusions should be drawn from this history of noncompliance.
If I were a member of the Committee, I'd be concerned that by deciding to lift the block I imposed on MarshalN20 for editing Chile-Peru football rivalry (in my view, pretty clearly an "article ...related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed" as per the terms of the topic ban), the participants in the noticeboard discussion may de facto have already modified (in the sense requested here by MarshalN20) or vacated the Committee-imposed topic ban, in violation of the principle that Arbitration Committee decisions are binding ( WP:AP). This raises the question whether the procedure documented at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions requires amendment to prevent this sort of "appeal to the community" against Committee decisions (in the context of their enforcement), which is not envisioned by the community-adopted arbitration policy. Sandstein 15:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that too many administrators go around looking for excuses to block or ban other editors, and Sandstein is one of the worst of those. (Redacted) he ought to be banned from the arbitration enforcement cock pit nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following this discussion closely, so perhaps I have misread things, however, if Sandstein has blocked Lecen while his block of MarshallN120 is under discussion, then that doesn't appear wise. The arbitration enforcement should have been left to someone else. DrKiernan ( talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Having worked elbow-to-elbow with both MarshallN120 and Lecen, I'm happy to see someone is finally addressing Lecen, whose attitude and belligerence were quite a pain in my petusky when I was FAC delegate. I don't understand why MarshallN120 can't work on soccer articles, and my experience with Lecen indicates he's unlikely to adapt his behavior(s) with anything short of blocks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be yet another case where Sandstein's enforcement of arbitration remedies is clearly problematic. I think the Arbs should consider that aspect of the question as well. Either bar him from enforcing arbitration remedies altogether or restrict him so that he at least cannot act unilaterally when enforcing them. He does seem to avoid some of the more egregious problems when other admins are there to rein in his excesses.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As I stated on AN/ANI, because the lead of the soccer rivalry article clearly asserts that the important of that rivalry comes from history (not sports history). In fact, one could argue that without that importance/notability statement, this article would not necessarily exist. As it was patently obvious that this article was related to Latin American history, and thus was subject to the topic ban, even though the article was primarily about soccer. ES &L 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is clearly how broadly "broadly construed" should be construed.
I suggest the current standard of "Six Degrees of Separation" is untenable, and that therefore the term ought to be finally deprecated.
I suggest "reasonably and directly related to the case giving rise to the restriction" is a far more logical wording. Postulate a person barred from all articles relating to "American History" -- "broadly construed" would clearly apply to "The Beatles" as referring to a "British invasion" by one using the "broadly construed" standard. And those who insist that all violations should be treated in a draconian manner (as the Queen of Hearts once said "Off with their head!") are confusing the trees with the forest. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Further comment: The proposed motion still retains "broadly construed" which conflicts with the wording "directly related" on the same motion. It is not logical to have conflicting criteria in the same sentence. The motion ought be better phrased as
Which would avoid the "broadly construed" potential misuse. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Referring to User:The ed17 above and the reference to the first month long block under this broadly construed topic ban. It would be informative to put this into context:
I note that in the case of the first block, the editor was blocked in what is effectively a punitive manner after they had already realised and acknowledged an error on their part. I don't see this block as defensible.
In the second block, which was for two months based on a presumption of recidivism following the first, User:MarshalN20 was editing the football-related article Chile–Peru football rivalry. That there is a reference to the War of the Pacific in the lede, lead to a block under the broadly construed nature of the topic ban. In this case, I have difficulty seeing a block as defensible with the application of WP:COMMON, though given the poor wording in the original topic ban perhaps it is a grey area. I am encouraged my interpretation was correct as arbcom members have indicated below that they don't consider the topic ban extended to the article that led to the second block.
Two issues are being raised here.
I would suggest that rather than referring to Latin America in totality, the wording is revised to cover only those areas relevant to the arbcom case. I would suggest the topic ban should be revised to be specifically related to Argentine history prior to December 1980 or whatever date arbcom sees fit. I would also suggest this is contingent on all parties in the case restrict themselves to a 1RR restriction and find themselves a mentor as their behaviour has been far from optimal. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Common sense is useful if it is informed. The suggestion that international sports rivalry, especially in the Western World, is a priori not a history topic seems uninformed (see Greek Games) -- moreover, here in an article (the one under discussion) that prominently discusses the geopolitical background. If this committee wants a narrower ban -- it is its responsibility to make it narrower. Don't blame others. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not all that familiar with the original case, though I believe I was marginally involved in the content dispute resolution history, so what I am about to say may be wholly irrelevant. In regard to Motion 1, some care might need to be exerted in regard the term "geopolitical" in order to avoid further ambiguity. For something to be geopolitical, it generally has to have a geographic component or influence, not just be limited by geography (i.e. limited to Latin America). Just "political" might work better. You might also want to be careful of the phrase "of Latin America," especially with the "broadly construed" dropped, as this could be read to only include topics affecting all of Latin America (especially since "geopolitics" suggests an international or regional subject matter). I know that you're trying to cut the scope of this remedy down, but you don't want to go too narrow, either. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Just passing through. I can see what you're trying to do with Motion #2, but it encapsulates a principle which is already an explicit part of WP:TBAN ("Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.") The language and examples at WP:TBAN are quite clear.
My concern is that you may be inviting future confusion and conflict as administrators at AE are left to try to divine your intent in not simply relying on the explicit provisions of WP:TBAN in this particular remedy (or worse, to try to guess how the absence of this specific additional emphasis and endorsement should affect the interpretation of all other topic ban remedies to which you have not – yet – added this particular language).
If the Committee is concerned that there are specific instances in which the provisions of WP:TBAN have not been properly interpreted or applied, then feel free to address that as needed—but don't go rewriting or restating extant policies as a remedy. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, if, for the purposes of this restriction, we define "history" as "an umbrella term that relates to past events", we end up concluding that almost every article on Wikipedia is covered by this topic ban; in this, I agree with Marshal: even the article about the banana has a history section. And I also agree with Thryduulf that the article in question appears to be mainly about sports, even if it contains a history section, and that reverting the addition of material about an event in 2013 should not have been considered a violation of Marshal's restriction.
For these reasons, I support the proposal to tweak the wording of the restriction, so that it is more consistent with what we intended to prohibit in the first place (or, to be more precise, with what I think we wanted to prohibit when we originally imposed the topic) – and, so, pilfering Thryduulf's wording, I'd clarify that, for the purposes of this restriction, the term "history" should be interpreted as referring to a. the geopolitical, economic and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and b. any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic or military events that occurred before December 1983 (or a different date, considering we only granted the 1983 exemption wrt Argentine history).
Finally, an editor who is banned from interacting with another may not make comments, either directly or indirectly, about him anywhere, for any reason, except to report a violation of the restriction, to ask for a clarification of or to appeal the ban. Lecen's comments, therefore, are a violation of his restriction and I'm about to ask the clerks to remove them. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
For reference, the relevant remedy relating to MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is:
2) MarshalN20 ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces. This topic ban may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after one year.
Proposed:
Proposed:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Fram ( talk) at 07:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Richard Arthur Norton got three sanctions and one admonishment, all intended to stop his copyright violations. Strangely enough, no actual sanction for making copyright violations in the mainspace was included, although the admonishment said "He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing."
Since then, he hasn't edited a lot until very recently, when he started creating a lot of articles in his userspace, mostly related to subjects where the sources are from 1915 or thereabouts, and the chance of copyright violations is smaller. He has also edited the mainspace, and when he strayed into more recent events, he again immediately created a copyright violation, following the text and structure of the source much too closely. It's not a large one, but it is worrying. Is this sanctionable under the ArbCom cae admonishment, or does it need standard admin sanctions?
Richard's full text (with link to the source):
Copyrighted source [19]:
@SilkTork: no, my request here was more about "if you violate a restriction, you get reported at AE; but if you violate an admonishment (which was the basis for the restrictions, and which has a block threat in it), where do you get reported? No problem in taking it to AE (or AN or ANI or whatever), but it wasn't clear to me where this was supposed to go. Fram ( talk) 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@RAN: first, there was no indication in your post that you were restoring older content, which is itself problematic. I didn't check whether you reinserted some older post made by someone else, why would I? Anyway, if you reinsert text, you take responsability for it. Claiming that because Alansohn didn't remove it as a copyright violation, you were free to reinsert it is not a valid defense. But in this case, it is worse, you didn't simply resinsert it, you added the source, so you should have seen that the text you reinserted and the source were basically identical. If you are not able to spot such similarities when sourcing two sentences to a short article, then we have a problem. If you did spot the similarities but didn't see a problem with them, then you have an even bigger problem. Fram ( talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@All: At User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#File:Boelckeo.JPG, where I warned RAN about a technical violation of his restrictions, which I didn't bring here (something which was not really appreciated however), he compared me to Javert ("You certainly are the Javert of Wikipedia."), which I considered a personal attack and stated as much in my replies there. For him to repeat this here, in his reply, repeatedly, is unacceptable behaviour. I try to make comments about the edits, not the editor, and certainly not in such a deliberately provocative manner. Can someone remind RAN that such comments are not acceptable? Fram ( talk) 07:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@NE Ent: don't be daft. When you add a quote in quotes, with the source, then you aren't making a copyright violation (if it short and relevant for the discussion, as it was here). I didn't claim the text as my own: RAN did. Please don't disrupt ArbCom pages to make an incorrect point, like you did here. I've reverted your change. Fram ( talk) 07:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Javert User:Fram is 1/3 correct.
User:Commander edit on December 3, 2013 added "In the 2011 American superhero film 'Captain America: The First Avenger' as Brooklyn native Steve Rogers tries to enlist in the Army during World War II before his transformation into a super soldier, he lies about his hometown. One of the towns he uses as an assumed address is Paramus, New Jersey." It was deleted as unreferenced by User:Alansohn. It was not deleted as a copyright violation.
I then restored it and added the reference in this edit on December 3, 2013. If User:Alansohn had deleted it as a copyright violation and not as unreferenced, I would not have restored it. Kudos for User:Javert User:Fram for detecting it, but it would be nice if he showed the whole story of the edit. Instead he showed 1/3 of three edits in succession, as a "gotcha" moment, to get me banned from Wikipedia. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@Hobit: Don't forget where he recently warned me after I adjusted the contrast on an image already loaded in Wikipedia. It is clear there is animosity and he wants to get me permanently banned and has been working toward that goal ever since I had my first run-in with him at AFD several years ago. I think an interaction ban would be in the best interest of both of us. That way he can spend more time editing and less time watching every edit I make. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: If you think Patch Media is an unreliable news source, you should work to have it blacklisted. Patch media is a hyperlocal news outlet owned by AOL. The writers are underpaid, but payed, and there is editorial vetting of articles. It is not a personal blog. And of course, anyone who saw the movie would recognize that is correct and not in need of a retraction by Patch. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 17:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad - I don't quite see how you can agree with both SilkTork's and Salvio's comments as they appear to me to be somewhat contradictory. Could you explicate?> Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of these fleeting references to a place, usually of the sort that reads "On Glee, Adam Lambert's character, Elliott 'Starchild' Gilbert mentioned that he was originally from Paramus, NJ", which I removed in this edit. A statement about Captain America had been added several times, which I removed each time as an unsourced fleeting mention( see here, here for a few recent examples). Most recently, it had been reinserted here. After I had removed it (yet again) here, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reinserted the material in this edit, finally adding the reliable and verifiable source needed to support the claim, one that specifically mentions the movie and associates it directly with Paramus. I was still wary, but I looked at the source and came to the conclusion that it supported the statement. If I had felt that it hadn't been an appropriate source, I would have removed it; It was appropriately reliable and verifiable. I read the source word for word and if I had thought there was a WP:COPYVIO issue, I would have removed it; I didn't see a COPYVIO issue. User:Fram's analysis shows that there is some overlap between the source and the material that had been added to the article, but this is at worst a close paraphrase, and the close paraphrase was by User:Commander edit. RAN's actions were intended to add the source that I had specifically indicated as missing, and if I hadn't deleted the edit as unsourced there would be zero issue here; RAN would have only been adding the source, not assuming responsibility for Commander edit's edit with what may be a close paraphrase. I do understand how an editor could see this as a copyright violation or a violation of arbitration terms, but having been personally responsible for the edit that effectively burdened RAN with the claim of a COPYVIO issue, this was not in any way an effort by RAN to insert material in violation of a copyright, but rather appears clearly to me to be an effort to finally add a source to the article for a claim that had been added over and over again without one. RAN deserves credit both for his efforts to address the concerns raised via arbitration and for his efforts to add appropriate references to an unsourced statement. That the two issues sadly overlap and combine in one claimed incident is at worst an inadvertent reinsertion of someone else's possible close paraphrase, and is simply not the type of COPYVIO that is relevant to the arbitration enforcement. Alansohn ( talk) 16:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't care about copyright to the extent many Wikipedians seem to. It's not going to be "The end of Wikipedia." (Fair use, no economic damages necessary to win a case in court, DMCA...)
But if RAN's reversion with a source of a close paraphrase is an inadvertent copyvio, logically Fram's copypaste of the full quote is an intentional one. (I've removed it; will be interesting to see if any reverts the removal and what justification they provide.). NE Ent 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm running on very little sleep, but I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. First, while NE Ent's point about Fram's copywrite violation was perhaps meant tongue-in-cheek, it does bring up a very relevant point. Fram quoted the article in it's entirety to make his point and no one batted an eye. If it were a 2 page document, I think folks would have rather rapidly redacted it (and I doubt Fram would have done any such thing). But no one (other than NE Ent) seemed to mind even though the case for fair use is much weaker here--there's no way all the points of WP:NFCC are met here. I'd argue that it's because it is such a short quote.
There is serious discussion about sanctioning someone for that short a quote which was simply restored. We've got a respected editor who reviewed the edit and saw nothing amiss either. Shall we sanction him also? He too checked the source.
I feel that RAN is 24601. Yes he broke the law. But now he is being persecuted for things when others (Fram in this case) are doing even worse things in front of ARBCOM. The point isn't that Fram has done anything horribly wrong, the point is that what Fram did is in every way worse (entire article directly quoted, not in article space, etc.) and no one cared. It's like yelling at someone for talking too loud in a library.
And Fram wasn't aware that RAN was restoring text from another editor when he brought this case here. Fram has been stalking RANs edits. He's prodded a disambiguation page in the last couple of weeks when he only found because RAN had created it. I'd urge the committee to direct Fram to stop following RAN's edits--if there is a problem, someone else will notice. Fram is following around someone who is effectively on probation just waiting for him to screw up and breathing down his neck. This isn't helpful and it boarders upon harassment. Long ago I asked Fram to stop following RAN around (years ago?). This isn't something anyone should have to put up with. Fram is by-and-large a reasonable person, but when it comes to RAN everything seems to get blown out of proportion. It's quite plain that he'd prefer RAN be banned. If someone followed all of your edits that closely, they'd find something problematic. And you'd get frustrated as heck.
I've tried to run a wikistalk tool to identify the interactions and I'm not being successful (things are very slow, perhaps because these editors both have a massive number of edits). Perhaps someone else can get it to work.
Sorry for the rant (did I mention I haven't slept much?), but this has been a problem years in the building and it needs to be addressed. Hobit ( talk) 09:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Xenophrenic ( talk) at 21:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am presently "topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed." I have recently edited the James O'Keefe biography article, which I obviously do not see as falling under this restriction since O'Keefe has no relation to the Tea Party. My edits were also wholly unrelated to the Tea Party. However, another editor raised the question on the O'Keefe talk page which has prompted me to cease editing that article until I obtain clarification here. Please note: I see the phrase "Tea Party" does briefly appear elsewhere in the O'Keefe article, and I have no desire to circumvent the ArbCom case restrictions even inadvertantly, so I have to ask...
This is where the "broadly construed" phrasing can get tricky. O'Keefe may not be "officially" assosciated with the Tea Party, but his mentor was Andrew Breitbart and his activities are pretty clearly aligned with the goals and values of the Tea Party. If there is any doubt, you should probably just stay away. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As the "other editor" in question, this is actually good guidance for those of us on the periphery. In this case, I raised the question not to get anyone in trouble (and I would hope that any admin/arb reading this would see it for what it is and not an attempt by Xenophrenic to skirt the boundaries of the ArbCom case), but because of this specific section in the article, which is about a video release noteworthy because of the NPR associate's comments on the Tea Party movement.
Looking back at the original case, it appears that ArbCom chose not to address the question of what "broadly construed" means. For the sake of reducing inter-editorial strife, I'm hoping some sort of guidance can come of this clarification request.
"Tea Party" is often used in daily conversation in America imprecisely and usually pejoratively to indicate anyone sufficiently the right of American politics. The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts. James O'Keefe would seem to not qualify on that end, except that one of his major claims to fame is a video he released of an NPR executive speaking candidly about the Tea Party. Since the topic ban is on "all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed" (emphasis added), the presence of the topic as a component of the article on James O'Keefe, activist, renders the Wikipedia-en page James O'Keefe under the topic ban. This is why topic bans are best written as editing subject bans and not page bans. I suggest that the Committee clarify or amend the wording of the topic ban to apply to edits concerning the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, and that the edits in question be allowed, although I think Xenophrenic is better advised to steer clear because of the specific history of O'Keefe's activism -- Tznkai ( talk) 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
flies squarely in the face of what "broadly construed" clearly means. Although, obviously, that phrase is (deliberately) imprecise, any clarification of its meaning to come from the committee must cast the widest possible net, and not be hamstrung by restrictive definitions such as Tznkai's. In this case, the "Tea Party" should include everyone Tzankai mentioned, as well as all those people to whom it is applied in the common understanding of its meaning.The fairest definition of the topic of "Tea Party movement" however should refer to organizations, voters, and activists self-identifying as themselves members of the Tea Party or Tea Party organizations, self identifying as allies of the same, or politicians whose support derives from those efforts
The goal here is not to make some kind of socio-political point, but to reduce disturbance in the editing environment. To schieve that, "broadly construed" must mean what it says. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If the general public or the press use "Tea Party" to describe a certain person, they do so because it seems to fit the person's attitude, behavior or politics, regardless of whatever their "official" status is. Such a person is more than likely to create the same possibility of disputatious editing, and should, therefore, be included in the "broadly construed" definition, which is, again, a definition to be used in regard to editing behavior only. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by RexxS ( talk) at 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I seek clarification of the remedy Editors reminded
5) All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
- Passed 10 to 0 at 00:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this remedy meant to have effect? Today, following > discussion on the talk page, I restored an infobox to Deepika Padukone with an edit summary explaining my edit:
With no further discussion, Dr. Blofeld reverted my edit with edit summary:
And followed that up with utterly inapropriate comments at the talk page.:
Apart from the blatant OWNERSHIP, this behaviour directly contravenes the remedy, requiring editors to "maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes". Is the remedy meant to be taken seriously? If so, then why should I have to be subjected to these sort of remarks? It remains impossible to discuss infoboxes in a civilised manner with these people - just as I explained during the case.
I also seek guidance: If there is no means to enforce the ArbCom remedy, then the case has merely emboldened those who dislike infoboxes and given them licence to attack good-faith editors with impunity, rendering discussion futile once more. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Look folks, this request of mine has now reached the point where it's generating more heat than light. These sort of procedings bring out the worst in me and I apologise to Blofeld and Carcharoth for being far too blunt in my replies to them.
I have now seen many more opinions on the general issue of being able to discuss infoboxes in a calm and collegial atmosphere and I am encouraged at last.
As for specifics:
Could we wrap this up now and spare a few more innocent electrons? Please? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
New ArbCom should look at this. Dr Blofeld's statement is utterly unacceptable. I don't care who he's friends with, there's no excuse for that. I think this should be dealt with summarily and harshly.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
As to the edits reported here, I agree with Wehwalt that they are unacceptable and should result in a rapid sanction. I'd issue a block myself under normal admin authority, but I am not sure whether I am preempted from doing so by the fact that the Committee has now been seized of this request for clarification. Sandstein 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
If you view the history of the Peter Sellers ( here) and John Le Mesurier talk pages you'll see why infobox pushers highly frustrate me and this recent action on another of my FAs is really making me fed up with this website. Perhaps my reaction was strong if you look at it without understanding my previous battles with fighting infobox pushers but I'm fed up of writing FA articles and us editors agreeing on no infobox and then people like Rexx coming along and providing false edit summaries as if the infobox contains masses of useful data. At 18:21 on 28 December 2013 I stated "We decided that it had nothing of value and looked better without it. Infoboxes are not compulsory you know." on the talk page. Just 2 hours 12 m later, innocent Rexx comes along and imposes an infobox ignoring clear consensus and obviously being aware of the discussion, violating what you decided here. My edit summary reverting him, "bullshit", I take as meaning "nonsense" in response to his claim that the infobox was full of useful data for mobile readers when in reality its virtually empty. My response on the talk page did not contain personal attacks, rather an expression of contempt at the Nazi-like cult which exists on the website trying to force infoboxes on every article and told him to do something more useful. I very rarely add or revert infoboxes and care little for the nonsense associated with them so I really don't see the point in pursuing this further. I apologise if Rexx was upset with what I said, but I feel I was more than justified given the circumstances and my history with dealing with infobox pushers.
Response to Wehwalt: Harshly? And the point of that would be? It would achieve what exactly? If you're to block/ban me for dismissing an edit summary which implies that something is of great benefit which is in violation of your "civilty" rules as "bullshit" as if that's a gross personal attack or something, then Rexx is equally guilty of violating your rules on infobox enforcement and blatantly ignoring the consensus on the talk page. It would be double standards wouldn't it? Blocking me or banning me from infoboxes will not stop uncivil discussions taking place over infoboxes. I've been civil in the actual discussions about infoboxes aside from my initial explanation of annoyance over the matter and have tried to make some constructive suggestions on how to include an infobox which has more value. The real issue lies much deeper and it's one I believe/hope will be resolved at some point with infoboxes being controlled by wiki data.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Response to Wehwalt, you mean my comparison of infobox enforcement to Nazism? Yes I'll strike that, I personally wouldn't find it offensive but I can see how some might. My point was that there seems to be some sort of obsession with adding infoboxes and editors seem intent on brutally enforcing them upon every article even when editors agree on not wanting them. I assumed that Rexx was one of the infobox enforcing regulars. It seems he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he ignored what we stated was agreed on the talk page and turned up and tried to enforce an infobox. If he wanted a collegiate atmosphere and to be treated amicably he should have simply joined in the discussion first and should have avoided what he surely would have known would be a controversial change... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@David Fuchs. Ownership? Editors who naturally put in hours/day/weeks of hard toil on articles, take them to GA and then FA and bother to promote them are naturally going to feel that they have had more input that most others editors and feel protective of them. That doesn't mean that we'll revert every edit made to it. Don't confuse claims of authorship with ownership.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Response to Wehwalt:My perception of the situation was that like with the Sellers article the infobox "enforcers" have sort of like a cell operation on here and are often aware of where disputes are taking place. You'll get people turning up trying to force infoboxes during disputes and them being reverted. I assumed that Rexx had read my "infoboxes are not compulsory and we agreed that no infobox looks better given the lack of info" and purposefully come along and added an infobox to assert that infoboxes are a necessity and override the preferences of the article editors. I think it was the fact he came along just 2 hours after I said that and added one I assumed him to be some infobox Nazi. I found it disrespectful that my assertion on the talk page of the situation was directly overridden in such a short space of time and in my revert or comment being ultra nice and respectful to him given the circumstances wasn't exactly my first thought. As Rexx says though we've spoken by email and we both agree that it isn't constructive to continue this arb case and won't get to the root of the problem and that discussion in a civil fashion should continue elsewhere.
My biggest concern overall is that this infobox issue has become a major site problem with the disputes and time wasting which can cause unnecessary inflammation and actions. I agree with what the arb decided on infobox issues but in practice this often doesn't work. The majority seem to support infoboxes, however seemingly empty they are and seem to see it as an essential piece of furniture, and as with the Sellers article and other, infoboxes typically end up being added regardless of whether the people who wrote the whole article want one. Given the basic cleanup work which is needed in most articles it's a time sink which is causing editors to leave or storm out in despair, zapping any energy or enthusiasm for the project they have left. I have a feeling that at some point infobox data will be controlled by wikidata and there'll be an option of whether to hide them or not and such disputes will become history at some point, but it might be too late and we'll lose more valuable editors in the meantime.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by NE Ent at 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The absolute binary nature of this remedy has put the AE community in the awkward position of either ignoring or imposing a severe remedy for what is arguably a minor, perhaps unintentional, infraction of the revert restriction remedy of the case. Please see applicable AE discussion. The committee should either just go ahead and impose the ban, or empower the admins at the AE to use their judgement as to whether the remedy is appropriate in a particular context. NE Ent 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
A splendid example of the "law of unintended consequences." Fixable simply by changing will be to may be and adding after discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. Sorter wording and wording which well ought to be adopted by ArbCom in similar cases in future. Collect ( talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm commenting here as an administrator who has also commented about the currently open enforcement request. I didn't follow the original case and have no opinion about whether the Committee's remedy that provides for an automatic topic ban of RosylnSKP in the event of a block is appropriate or not. That is for the Committee to determine, although I would find it surprising if the Committee were to change its mind so soon about a case it decided just a week ago.
Procedurally, I find this request by an editor who has no apparent reason to make it, because they are neither an administrator nor personally involved in the case, unhelpful. It adds an additional complication to processing the open enforcement request. This is not the first time that this forum has been used to preempt or influence an ongoing enforcement proceeding, which makes the enforcement process even more complicated and time-consuming. I recommend that the Committee considers under which if any circumstances it wants to accept amendment requests pertaining to decisions that are in the process of being enforced, and that it clarifies whether such requests mean that ongoing enforcement proceedings should be suspended (which, absent rules to that effect, I assume is not the case). Sandstein 11:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether contingent sanctions such as this one are in principle a good idea is a different question, about which I don't really have an opinion. I suppose it depends on the case and the editors involved. Sandstein 17:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Initial statement (on the content dispute)
|
---|
Commenting here not as an arbitrator (I recused on the case itself), but as someone who has a passing knowledge of the some of the history here: the underlying content matter looks to be extremely complex. As far as I can tell, the use of both the terms Ottoman and Turkish is valid in such articles, as long as those terms are used correctly. But to use them correctly requires a solid understanding of the politics and history of the region. One of the books I'm reading at the moment is A Peace to End All Peace - The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Fromkin, 1989). That is by no means definitive, and there are obviously a multitude of sources that can be consulted, but the key point is that both terms can be used in the same article as long as you use them correctly (the fact that multiple academic sources use both terms depending on the context should make that clear). I think the idea that you have to use one term to the exclusion of the other on one article, or even use them interchangeably, is wrong, and that wasn't emphasised enough in the MILHIST discussions, and the arbitration case may have missed some of the more subtle points of this altogether. The key is to understand the sources and use the terms correctly. I understand that arbitration cases focus on conduct, but I'm making this statement in the hope that those editing such articles, and also those carrying out arbitration enforcement, don't draw the conclusion from the arbitration case that the underlying content matter is a simple one. Some editors do, or may, need to be excluded from the discussions, but more discussion of the content issues here will be needed at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Given that this edit (which triggered Sandstein's action) can only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1, activating the topic ban seems entirely sensible. Which is a shame as I previously supported only issuing a strong warning or short duration block for the renewed edit warring. Nick-D ( talk) 10:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein's action—which seems reasonable to me, given the edit that triggered it and RoslynSKP's lack of response at AE (despite my best effort to avoid a block and automatic topic ban)—might make this moot. However, I'd just like to say that I'd prefer not to see admins' hands bound like that again. What we were faced with was a relatively minor breach of the applicable remedy. An indefinite topic ban for such a violation would normally be considered grossly disproportionate (and, if enacted unilaterally by an AE admin, would likely be reduced on appeal); a short block would be much more likely under ordinary circumstances. In this case, we were left with the choice of essentially letting RoslynSKP off, or triggering a disproportionate sanction that would not normally have been considered.
ArbCom: if it is your desire to remove somebody from a topic area, then, frankly, you are perfectly capable of doing that yourselves. If it is your desire to give an editor enough rope and hope they don't hang themselves with it, then please don't force AE admins to act as hangmen for a trivial misdemeanour. I endorse any proposed wording that gives admins just a little leeway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been aware of this discussion, but had not taken part because I simply don't understand much of what is discussed. Now I can't as its also blocked. I am just an editor trying to get through this. Until this block there has never been any indication that other edits which did not change the appellations would also be violations. I did not set out to argue for one above the other, and still resist that interpretation, but to clearly state what the note only alludes to. Nick-D's characterisation that it could "only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1" is completely wrong, and needs to be appreciated in the light of every other comment this editor has made since first contact. If the words of the Arbitration decision can be taken at face value then restriction 1 has not been violated as the appellations were not changed. If a much broader interpretation was implied then some indication of this should have been given to me.
I was about to log off when I got the link to [20] where I was relieved to find Carcharoth's attempt to put the complexities of the appellation question into some perspective, which MILHIST discussion completely failed to do. Mention must also be made of Neotarf's note in Carcharoth's link which claims articles were written by someone from a list of battle names [21], none of which were used in the three articles referred to and the lists of citations and references clearly demonstrate the error of claiming the articles were based on this one source. -- Rskp ( talk) 03:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I offered Roslyn some unsolicited free advice from an uninvolved editor here, which others may wish to be aware of. I share Carcharoth's surprise that a clean block log was not noted during the case, and also wonder whether it should not have been a factor considered by Sandstein in choosing the block length. Roslyn may not have the knowledge of blocks and sanctions that is typical of editors restricted by ArbCom. EdChem ( talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)at 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
The 2013 Arbitration case involving Tea Party movement resulted in topic bans for myself and the above named editors. I'd made an edit request at Gun control. It later occurred to me that gun control is an issue for some groups in the tea party movement. Since the topic ban states, "broadly construed," I'd like to know if this article would be considered among those that are to be avoided. The above named editors have all edited the article after the TPm topic ban. I've avoided all political articles as I do not wish to violate the ban in any way. Thank you.
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for the commonsense approach. That's an interesting analogy, but Amelia Earhardt didn't make Cookies a political issue. Apparently, the gun thing is a big issue for the tea party movement as well as certain constitutional amendments including the 2nd amendment, right to bear arms. I agree commonsense should be the guide, but when one is topic banned, it's best to ask first, edit second. Malke 2010 ( talk) 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad & Carcharoth: Thank you both. That is excellent advice. General topics okay, specific no. Best to stay away from everything until ban lifted. Malke 2010 ( talk) 03:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
No, not covered If "gun control" is covered by the Tea Party topic ban, then all articles on every issue mentioned in any local Tea Party chapter's platform are similarly covered by the ban. That would be absurd. If I am banned from talking about Amelia Earhart, and I wish to edit Cookies, am I barred from doing so, since Earhart liked to bake cookies? Same difference. Discussion of an issue is not the same thing as discussion about a party that happnes to care about the issue. That said, one should steer clear of overtly party-related subsections, and I know that's dicey, but the world's an imperfect place. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that before assuming that the article in question has anything to do with the TPm, one might note that "tea party" occurs exactly zero times in that article. In fact "tea" occurs zero times in that article. I suggest that saying it is covered in any part by a ban on TPm is stretching the bungee cord to the breaking point, indeed. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The Paul Ryan case is interesting. It does not make any reference to him being directly connected with the TPm at all. The only "connection" is surmise in an AP article. The article is not listed in any TPm related categories whatsoever. North8000 made no edit remotely connected with the TPm on that BLP that I can find. So -- no real connection to TPm and the edits had absolutely no connection to the TPm means that side issue is grossly overstated here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of defining the Tea-Party topic ban, what about Paul Ryan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Ryan has been closely identified with the Tea Party and its agenda by, among others, the Associated Press ( "Tea party gets its man in Ryan for vice president"), the New York Times ( "Ryan Brings the Tea Party to the Ticket"), and CBS News ( "Why Tea Party senior citizens love Paul Ryan").
North8000 ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Tea-Party-related topics broadly construed. Yet North8000 is actively editing the article and talkpage, after being recruited by another editor to "enforce the consensus" [ sic] on the article. Does the Paul Ryan article fall under the umbrella of Tea-Party-related topics, broadly construed? MastCell Talk 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the views of the Committee members that have been stated so far. However, I think that it is worth considering (for the future, maybe, but maybe also for now) whether we made a mistake in making the topic ban so narrow. Might it have been a better choice to make the topic ban an American politics topic ban, or a "really, stop dancing around the edges of all this and go edit something about Mesopotamian architecture"-ban. After all, should we really expect someone who has been disruptive at Tea Party movement to be any better at John Cornyn or Libertarianism or BigGovernment.com? NW ( Talk) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
While the Tea Party movement deals with gun control, the topic of gun control is not limited to the Tea Party movement. So, for an editor to edit on gun control does not in any way mean they are editing in the area of the Tea Party movement. Surmise, and extending a sanction based on a surmise so that a sanction becomes sweeping is hardly fair or logical in my opinion. Per Floqquenbeam, the question should be specific. Does this article deal with the Tea Party movement specifically. If it takes the arbitration committee to clarify if it does or not, (and I so no evidence that it does), then the second question to ask is, did the editor know this article falls under Tea Party movement. Giving the editor the benefit of the doubt given even the arb committee is discussing this means, in my mind, the editor should be warned to be careful not sanctioned. But as I said in this case, there is no evidence that the article falls under Tea Party movement.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Fæ ( talk) at 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This request was first raised two months ago at AC/N link when I was advised to re-raise it here after the elections.
At the beginning of last year Arbcom accepted my appeal but at that point introduced the restrictions: [22]
I am requesting that the restrictions are lifted as not being of practical benefit to the project, in particular they are a key reason why I am avoiding offering my experience and volunteer time for training events or content creation projects that would improve the English Wikipedia. As an example of how difficult these broad restrictions are to comply with, in November 2013 I ran a one-off presentation and workshop with Kings College London as part of a UK "Women in Science" series of events [23]; these events are widely seen as a positive step by the Wikipedia community and a positive story by the global press with regard to addressing perceived systematic gender bias for Wikipedia content. During the event I created a stub [24] for Susan Lea, a professor of psychology at the college, as suggested by attendees, during the same event this was developed. It never occurred to me this may be an issue and it was only later that I realized that Lea's research covers sexual violence and rape.
Due to my past stressful experience of being harassed, I focused my volunteer time during 2013 on Wikimedia Commons, where I have uploaded over 160,000 photographs, and on request supported the Welsh Wikipedia where a continuing cooperative project has resulted in my uploading 2,700 requested book covers with 700 new articles about authors being created (some are authors on LGBT topics, though I have not created the articles). Apart from a handful of related image renames or behind the scenes OTRS work, I remained retired as a Wikipedian during 2013.
I have a long running interest in LGBT history and archives and I am at an informal exploratory discussion stage with a London college and planning to contact an independent library/archive I helped a few years ago, for a volunteer project I hope get off the ground in early 2014 (in advance of Wikimania 2014) that would help English Wikipedia content with media and previously unpublished source material, and could itself support the case for funding of an academic placement of a Wikipedian in Residence. I aim to get a proposal completed by February. By its nature a LGBT project would involve articles about events and living people (being from the 1950s to the current time) and LGBT material would be considered under the broad topic of sexuality.
Note, I have an approved project grant from WMUK [25] which supports Commons batch upload projects during 2014. Should there be a suitable opportunity to batch upload LGBT archive material, it is likely that it would be covered by the current grant.
I hope this request can be handled in a respectful way, especially considering the off-wiki attention that this topic tends to attract. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Fæ, I would recommend that if you wish to return to full editing on en.wp that you spend some time between now and march formulating a request to narrow the scope of your topic bans rather than removing them entirely. After at least 6-9 months of successfully working with no problems within those restrictions, the committee is more likely to look favourably on a further relaxation of restrictions or removing them entirely.
When you make that request (and don't make it shortly after midnight on the 1st) I suggest you focus on what you want to do, specifically, not what broad categories of material you might have worked on. "Sexuality" is a very broad topic, so there is scope for narrowing it. Identify something specific that you want to improve that is on the edge of the "Sexuality" topic area and propose a rewording of the article topic ban that leaves the core area you were sanctioned for within the scope but allows you to edit your proposed borderline articles. Propose also the addition of a second clause to the image ban along the lines of "excluding images directly related to X", where X is the article topic area you want to work on.
Once you have decided what you want to work on, get some edits to a related area that is outside the scope of the topic ban but which is adjacent to it. For example if you want to improve the coverage of living openly gay UK MPs, first improve an article like Nicholas Eden, 2nd Earl of Avon (died 1985, so clearly not a BLP subject), but make sure you don't work with images for the article. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of seeming rude/ungrateful Fæ, I'd suggest that the uploads to Commons you highlight in your request have had an undue emphasis on quantity over quality. I've recently been working with some of the IWM images you uploaded of British naval operations off Norway, and the fact that they were all uploaded as "File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War" followed by the relevant IWM catalogue number made them difficult to use. The minimal categorisation of the images you've been uploading also do not contribute to these images ever actually being used (for instance, you originally placed these IWM images in only the very broad "Royal Naval photographer" category, and images of aircraft you uploaded in November were placed only in a category for the airport, and not the plane type/serial number which is typically a much more useful classification). While your work in uploading all these images is clearly very valuable and contributed to "my" most recent FA ( Operation Tungsten) and what I hope will be my next GA ( Operation Mascot), the lack of basic follow through with categorisation to encourage their use raises some concerns in my mind (quite possibly unfairly) about how carefully you'd edit BLPs as it is suggestive of an attitude of prioritising "adding stuff" over "adding useful stuff". In short, I'd suggest that as part of the next unban request you be in a stronger position to demonstrate the quality of your contributions, and not just the quantity of them. Nick-D ( talk) 11:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
During the arbitration I commented that people interpreting outing policy focused too much on whether personal information was literally secret, as opposed to whether "opposition research" bringing it up at every opportunity was improper. My argument was rejected at the time, yet ArbCom has since changed course - ironically enough, in regard to someone with an opposing opinion during the Fae arbitration - finding that unduly focusing on another user's personal information was indeed highly inappropriate. [28] I might even say that decision has gone too far the other way. Given the decisive change in how this policy is interpreted, I think it is quite appropriate to consider an early end to a topic ban based on it. Wnt ( talk) 07:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)