Revision as of 02:58, 2 October 2010

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: {Speed of Light}

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by your Hell in a Bucket

There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in recent discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. ]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and he didn't see any problems.

There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert here a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. Risker (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Echo Risker's comments above, and note the current AE request regarding this current area. SirFozzie (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Transcendental Meditation movement Arbitration and Enforcement

Initiated by olive (talk) at 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect At Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: TimidGuy, Future Perfect At SunriseJmh649CirtEdith Siruis Lee

Statement:Littleolive oil

I’d like to request clarifications per the TM arbitration ruling that impacts a restriction placed on me.

A. Clarification of “warning” per this section of the TM arbitration:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question Shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

Jmh649 (Doc James) made a unilateral edit. I replaced the content to its original place asking for discussion. He warned me citing WP:UNDUE and later used this instance as a warning when he applied for sanctions

• How can an editor be warned for something that isn’t wrong?

• Should a warning per the arbitration be specific to the error the editor has made? Doc James warns me for WP:UNDUE, although never explains what he means, but then asks to have me sanctioned for editing against consensus and for edit warring.

• Who warns? Editors involved in a discussion, uninvolved editors/admins?

B. Reverting against consensus in an RfC:

The RfC was not closed, and no consensus had been shown. Doc James called this edit warring. I had told him on the talk page I would only revert once should he want to revert me. . I had also begun the process for formal mediation as an attempt to move beyond an impasse on discussion of the lead.

C. Edit warring:

Doc James uses these five edits across almost a week, but there is nothing close to violating 3RR. Edith’s edit is not the same content as any of the other “reverts.

1. Littleolive reverts consensus in RfC:  : 21:11, 8 August 2010/ Content A: includes my original edit as well as edits by other editors

2. TimidGuy reverts consensus in RfC: 06:06, 8 August 2010 /Content A

3. TimidGuy does not follow RfC: 06:32, 7 August 2010 /Content A

4. Littleolive does not follow RfC: 18:27, 7 August 2010/Not a revert…

5. TimidGuy removed references in the lead 06:38, 6 August 2010/Content B

6. Edith Sirius Lee reverts changes 19:43, 2 August 2010/Content C

I don’t see how this is a violation at all, or evidence of tag-team editing. And there was no consensus. Shouldn’t “that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles." from the arbitration be adhered to?

D. Additional irregularities:

• In the AE appeal, despite a note explaining I would be able to comment later in the day, FP sanctioned me before I could defend myself, and the case was closed. Was there “gross misconduct”?

• I was sanctioned with two other editors. Per the TM arbitration neither sockpuppetry nor meat puppetry was shown, but the sanction suggests we are one editor. The restriction was given with no time limit.

E. Request to have the restriction overturned:

Summary per arbitrator comments:

• Is there a definitive position on whether an editor has to be warned by an uninvolved editor, and does that warning have to be made by an admin. Could the arbitration committee please amend and then post the present wording to include whatever that position is. The TM Arbitration was set out to guide editors now and in the future in editing the numerous articles on TM. Its only fair for editors to know what how and why they can be sanctioned and how they can deal with other editors. Clearly wording the decision should make the appeal processes easier to deal with in the future.

Either:

A.Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.” (present wording)

B. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved editor advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.”

Or:

C. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning by an uninvolved administrator advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

• No one dealt with my appeal to look at the legitimacy of the violations and sanctions against against me. I assume I'll have to go elsewhere.

• Thanks very much the the arbitrators for their comments and insights.(olive (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Will Beback

FWIW, another party covered by this enforcement, Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), has requested an appeal at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee.   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• This does seem to be an appeal rather than a request for clarification, and if so it duplicates the WP:AE appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee. While it may not have been the intent, it has the effect of forum shopping. I think it would be appropriate to merge the appeals and deal with them in one location, either WP:AE or WP:ARA.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• To Newyorkbrad and other drafters of ArbCom remedies: The more tricky clauses that get added to remedies, the more room there is for misunderstanding and for wikilawyering. There is a standard WP:Discretionary sanction. It's not clear why this case requires a special variation. Unless someone can explain what is unique about this case, I'd like to propose an amendment to the case replacing this unique sanction with the standard discretionary sanction. Otherwise editors, admins, functionaries, and arbitrators are likely to get caught in more enforcement "gotchas".   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the TM discretionary sanctions remedy, followed by the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions remedy.

Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles. The sanctions imposed may include bans for a period of time or indefinitely from editing any page or set of pages relating to Transcendental meditation; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; blocks of up to one year in length; or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This requirement of a prior warning shall not apply if an editor who was a named party to this case engages in gross misconduct.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and the misuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviours that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to comply may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator shall be considered "uninvolved" only if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes as an editor in articles within the topic. Hitherto uninvolved administrators enforcing the provisions of this decision shall not be considered to have become involved by their participation in enforcement. Any disputes about administrator involvement are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee. All bans and restrictions shall be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed initially to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators may not reverse discretionary sanctions without either (i) the agreement of the imposing administrator or (ii) community consensus or Arbitration Committee approval to do so.

.

Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.

Could the ArbCom please clarify the purpose of all the additional text in the TMM decision? In what way was the TMM case different from the R&I case that it required a sanction procedure five times as long?   Will Beback  talk 

Statement by Jmh649

User:JamesBWatson an editor not involved with this topic provides a clear summary of matters here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt

Chronology of recent appeals

1. 18:29, 12 September 2010 - Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs) files appeal, was moved and currently located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee.
2. 20:24, 12 September 2010 - Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) files appeal, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement.

Notes

• It seems quite odd that both of these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts (see and ) filed appeals, at two different locations, on the same day, within less than two hours of each other.
• This seems like forumshopping of very similar requests to multiple Misplaced Pages-process pages at the same time, and also possible meat-puppetry as a tactic, initiating multiple debates about what is substantively the same issue.

Question

1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee
2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_Arbitration_and_Enforcement

• Can these two processes be consolidated into one page somewhere? Do these two separate processes filed by these two Transcendental Meditation-focused accounts need to be ongoing at two different pages at the same time?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with this comment , by Will Beback - this request by Littleolive oil (talk · contribs), above, does indeed seem like forumshopping. It also appears to be more of an appeal than a request for "clarification" about anything in particular, rather a form of protestation. As such, it should be merged into the already-existing and duplicate-appeal filed by Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), on WP:AE, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Edith_Sirius_Lee. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fladrif

This "Request for Clarification" appears not to seek clarification at all, but rather to appeal the AE sanctions. The arguments being presented do not seek clarification of anything, but instead argue that the sanctions were improperly and improvidently imposed. The appealing party admits as much, stating that the issues are "lack of evidence of wrongdoing" and "lack of following procedure by the sanctioning admin". Cirt's observation that this request appears to be forum shopping is essentially admitted, when the appealing party states that she hopes that her request will be dealt with "here in this more neutral environment". Apparently she believes that the AE Appeals process is not a neutral environment, and thus wants to avoid having her complaint heard there. Such forum shopping should not be permitted. These sanctions were not the result was not some rogue admin acting precipitously without evidence, process or justification: at least three uninvolved administrators strongly agreed with the sanctions that were imposed. They should not be lifted or modified. Fladrif (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Roger, Brad, Rex The central fact here is that not one, not two, but three uninvolved, independent, neutral admins agreed that, under the plain meaning of the actual language of the TM ArbCom decision, the three sanctioned editors had been sufficiently warned about their editing conduct, and that their continued editing conduct after such fair warning was so clearly and eggregiously in violation of the requirements of the ArbCom decision as to warrant (i) a temporary topic-ban for one editor, and (ii) a collective 1RR restriction on the three sanctioned editors. They were asked to reconsider the decision, did, and determined that on further reflection, the sanctions were even more clearly warranted. A fourth uninvolved, neutral admin has agreed that the sanctions should not be lifted and denied the appeal. For LOO and ESL to claim, as they do now, that (i) they didn't do anything wrong and (ii) even if they did, the wrong person gave them notice so they shouldn't be expected to have to pay attention to the warning, is WP:WIKILAWYERING at its worst. To try to claim now that the only sanction that can be imposed after an extensive ArbCom proceeding in which every named editor was put on notice to clean up their act, and a clear and repeated violation of the requirements of that decision, is yet another warning is just nonsensical. Every dog gets one bite. Not three. Fladrif (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Edith Sirius Lee

I want to comment about the suggestion that Olive and I should have worked together and agreed about the way to react to the AE (the location, etc.). As I said in my appeal, if I was mislead and broken a rule, then I apologize. However, common sense tells me that Olive should not be limited in her actions because of actions that I have taken. In the past, we have been in disagreements about procedures, etc. We do not think alike. She should have her way. I should have my way. I might contribute further to the discussion here, but for now this is all what I have to say. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Point added: Will Beback does not provide any evidence for the presupposition in his comment . The presupposition is that the clarification of a well informed, neutral and uninvolved administrator would add tricky clauses in the policy and that these clauses would be special variations for this case. The rest of his comment builds on this presupposition. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Away for two weeks

Starting from today, for the next two weeks I will be travelling with little access to the Internet. So, I will not contribute any more here. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am challenging asking User:JamesBWatson to provide diffs of actual policy violation. Having a POV and trying to collaborate with all other involved editors so that it has its place together with other POVs in respect of NPOV does not break any policy. That is all what Olive did. It is also the only thing that TimidGuy and I did. So, I challenge him. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am thankful to James B. Watson for his answer. This clarification was very much needed. Similarly, the administrator who closed my appeal could not say that I violated the policy, and he had seen the case made by Doc James. The policy rules pretty much every aspect of an editor behaviour, AGF, etc. So, if we do not know that there are policy violations, why there were sanctions at the first place? Can a non involved administrator provide any diffs of policy violation? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

Accusations of sock and meatpuppetry were evaluated in detail on the TM ArbCom and were found to have no merit. Everyone is an independent editor. I therefore object to the continued attempts by some editors, to lump together other editors and paint them with one black brush. Assertions of forum shopping and coordinated editing appear to have no basis in fact. Each editor is unique and their behavior deserves to be examined individually. This current filing is one example. Littleolive oil should not be punished because another editor happens to make here own appeal near the same time. I urge the Arb Committee to look at this Request carefully. It is my understanding that Littleolive oil has outlined her case, not as an appeal attempt, but to demonstrate the clear need for clarification on the Enforcement policies as outlined in the ArbCom decision. Such clarification will then have direct bearing on any future appeal(s), either by Littleolive oil or others, as well as any future enforcement actions for other involved editors.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising to me to see that an editor, who seems knowledgeable about law based on their edit history, would be so eager to discount the clarification given here by Committee members and urge them to disregard an individual editor's rights to due process.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

Thanks are due to Brad and Roger for the clarification of the intentions behind the wording. As a consequence, I believe I am correct that a request for AE under discretionary sanctions in this area now should be a request for a warning in the first instance – unless the editor in question is a named party and is accused of gross misconduct. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fladrif

I agree completely with the sentiment of what you say, and I'd always want to see neutral, uninvolved admins exercising their judgement boldly in the best interests of the encyclopedia. For what it's worth, I completely endorse your actions. However, following Roger and Brad's comments, I merely observe that any party who may be even tangentially involved is going to have to find a neutral, uninvolved administrator to issue a warning and give the other editor a chance to amend their behaviour, before they can present a request for enforcement. In other words, unless a neutral, uninvolved, experienced third party happens to have already noticed a certain behaviour and given a warning, requests for enforcement in future will end up being a two-stage process. --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JamesBWatson

I am here because I have been asked to respond to Edith Sirius Lee, who has "challenged" me (I would have preferred "asked") to "provide diffs of actual policy violation". I never said that there were any policy violations, I merely explained that I thought I was being asked to support an "adversarial approach", and that I was not willing to do so. There may or may not have been policy violations: I have not said and do not intend to say anything one way or the other on that question. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• This is not a request for clarification, despite the bold type, but an appeal/protest. Given that this is already ongoing at AE, this is the wrong forum. Clerks, please close and make sure that any relevant info is copied as appropriate. — Coren  15:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• I was the arbitrator who drafted the sentence about giving warnings before imposing sanctions (in another case, but it's been adopted into the text of our standard discretionary sanctions remedy). What I had in mind in drafting it, though I suppose it isn't as clear as it could be, is a warning given by an administrator (reviewing a sanctions request or otherwise), rather than by an opponent in a content dispute. The purpose, which I hope is obvious, is to avoid anyone claiming "I didn't know I was at risk of sanctions" or "I didn't realize that a neutral, experienced person thought there was something wrong with my editing." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Is anything further requested of the committee here? If there are no further postings in the near future, I believe this can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am grateful to Brad for his clarification of the intended underlying meaning: I certainly interpreted it to mean that the warning should come from a neutral third-party and should give the warnee an opportunity to address the conduct. Roger Davies 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Catching up belatedly on this, the purpose of the neutral warning is to avoid a revolving door approach ("here's your warning, here's your summons", delivered in the same envelope) and thus reduce the prospect of biting newcomers either to the topic or the encyclopedia. However, that scarcely applies here and I don't think there's much doubt that in this instance the editors involved have had ample and sufficient warnings by a variety of other means.  Roger Davies 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Who warned who is a complete red herring here (though I don't disagree with the best practices mentioned above). Frankly I don't understand how editors who were involved in a case can later claim they were unaware of the discretionary sanctions or should have received better/more warnings or that someone should have more clearly explained to them what the problem was. All of the editors who appealed these sanctions were involved in the case, repeatedly warned before things got to the level of a case and should by this time know how Misplaced Pages works. The findings in the case they were involved in clearly set out the problems in the area, the relevant policies and what sanctions might happen if things continued to be a problem - exactly how much more clear could anyone be? Shell 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This looks to be part of the situation brought up in the TM 2 case request, and probably can be archived at some point. SirFozzie (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)