Revision as of 15:58, 2 June 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).

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Admins involved in the AE discussion: notified via a link to this request in the discussion.

Statement by Sandstein

I make this request in my capacity as an admin working at WP:AE.

• In June 2009, the Committee banned Pmanderson from editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates" for a year (Misplaced Pages:RFAR/DDL#Pmanderson topic banned).
• On 17 August 2009, the Committee passed a motion which does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban.
• On 28 August 2009, as a result of this AE thread, Shell Kinney (then not yet an arbitrator) added the following to the case page's sanction log: "Pmanderson (talk · contribs) restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption." Nobody appears to have objected to this.
• In April 2010, Tony1 requested the enforcement of this widened ban after Pmanderson appeared to have violated it.

Administrators now disagree at WP:AE#Result concerning Pmanderson about whether Shell Kinney's widening of the ban should be enforced. Please advise about how to proceed.  Sandstein  07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

Thanks for the clarification. Your diff shows that the motion did indeed restrict the scope of Pmanderson's topic ban, but that this amendment was recorded in such a way (by leaving the 14 June 2009 timestamps intact) as to make the reader believe that the amended version was the one originally passed. I agree that this is most unhelpful and that the clerks should consider establishing a better practice for the recording of amendments.

With respect to your proposal at AE that Pmanderson just agree to the widened ban, I am not sure that this would resolve the problem, because he could at any time withdraw such an agreement, and then we would be back to the same question under discussion here: which are the binding restrictions on Pmanderson?  Sandstein  10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pmanderson

This was a piece of inadvertence on my part; if I had realized, as I ought to have done, that the discussion linked to from WT:NOR involved an active MOS page (as well as some MOS regulars), I would not have commented - certainly not before Shell's expanded sanction expires a couple of months from now, and probably not then.

I will not now do so; therefore, if bans are preventative rather than punitive, it has done its work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Carcharoth: It is User:Tony1 who has taken an uncharacteristic interest in Talk:Catholic Church, even more than Ohconfucius; but most of the rest of your comment will apply to both of them. The substance of his effort to gather mud from a five-month-old edit dispute was answered (by a third party) . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

Arbs should evaluate whether the above statement is sincere and credible in light of previous comments which appear to strongly indicate that he was attempting to argue his way out of a topic ban extension based on a technicality rather than out of genuine contrition for his "inadvertance". Ohconfucius 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Carcharoth was right to point out my indiscretions in referring to Pmanderson via nick-names. I have apologised to them both for this and will not do it again.

  The MoS pages themselves have been stable. The occasional tension on MOS, MOSNUM and MOSLINK talk pages is not in a way that is damaging to the project. I will do more to exercise restraint and encourage calm at all times on these pagers. I hope this is a satisfactory response to your concerns. Ohconfucius 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Since my previous comment (at arbitration enforcement) has been raised recently (at the current WP:AE thread), and it concerned User:Ohconfucius, I would like the arbitrators to consider that previous comment I made, along with recent behaviour by Ohconfucius, and to ascertain whether his combative approach is helping here, and whether a widening of the topic ban on Ohconfucius to cover all MOS and style pages (similar to the widening applied to Pmanderson) will help here.

My comment, back in August 2009, was here, and can be read in full context here in the arbitration enforcement thread closed by Shell (before she was an arbitrator). Back then, I pointed out that Ohconfucius had, with this edit, referred to Pmanderson as "the style anarchist Pam Anderson". I made the case that this was a deliberate insult by Ohconfucius, but nothing was done at the time, possibly because it was later struck by Ohconfucius. Given this, and noticing the WP:AE thread, I decided to take a closer look at Ohconfucius's conduct here.

From what I can see, Ohconfucius sees Pmanderson as a "MOS style" opponent and pushes back against him whenever he can, as witnessed by the edits here (objecting to the "words to watch" edits due to having that page on his watchlist) and here (complaining about Pmanderson on an unrelated topic and for some reason trying to link it to the enforcement request). I can't see any previous involvement that Ohconfucius has had with the Catholic Church topic. I would suggest asking Ohconfucius why he has suddenly taken an interest in Pmanderson's editing on the Catholic Church topic.

As for recent combative behaviour by Ohconfucius, there are several examples (all from the last two weeks): here (a strike-out of unnecessary commentary, which doesn't really undo the harm done by making such comments); another insulting of Pmanderson here (using the nickname "Mandy" that Pmanderson has previously objected to - see here); using the word hogwash in an edit summary; telling another editor they need to grovel; making insinuations as here, the edit summary here (later apologised for here).

From what I can see, tensions still run high at various MOS and style pages, because there are more people than just Pmanderson who fail to control themselves on those pages (and more than just Ohconfucius as well). I think the whole MOS and style pages still suffer from people who take a very combative attitude to all this (showing an unwillingness to discuss civilly or reasonably, and unable to compromise). This was, in my opinion, the underlying problem in the date delinking case, and in some cases the root verbal incivility and attitude of some of the participants at MOS and style pages is still causing problems. I would urge that the attitude of all editors actively involved in MOS and style pages is given closer scrutiny, starting with Pmanderson and Ohconfucius, and including any other editors previously or currently sanctioned who are continuing the conduct that led to their sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to Sandstein

Sandstein, your second bullet point ("does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban") is incorrect. The motion passed by the Arbitration Committee, that you linked to in your first bullet point (the text of which is also on the case talk page), did modify Pmanderson's topic ban. The diff of the clerk enacting that change is here. Search for "Pmanderson" and you will see both the change, and what Shell later re-widened the ban to include (she was effectively reversing the narrowing that had taken place). In my view, the clerk making the change here should have made this clearer by collapsing the old remedies and writing in new ones below the collapsed ones, rather than just overwriting them and misleadingly leaving in both the date as the date when the case closed and the votes from the proposed decision, rather than the date the motion was passed and the vote numbers from the motion. Collapsing the old remedies and adding in the new ones avoids administrators like Sandstein having to dig through the history to find out what happened here. I did actually point this out at the time, but it seems my suggestions were never acted upon. Sandstein, do you think replacing the over-writing with collapsed old remedies (dated for when the case closed, with the voting figures from the case) and visible new remedies (dated for when the motion passed, with voting figures from the motion) would help make things clearer? Also, would it have been clearer if Shell (or a clerk responsible for the page) had in addition to this edit made a note in the section containing the wording of Pmanderson's topic ban? Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tim Song

The general agreement of the administrators who commented in the AE thread is that in the absence of an explicit provision in the motion authorizing re-widening of the ban, Shell's sanction does not appear to be authorized. (My disagreement with Sandstein at the AE thread is over whether we should address the validity of the sanction at all when no party has contested it.) I do not see how the motion can be interpreted to authorize admins to widen the topic ban on their own discretion - Coren's comment that there will be "very little patience towards renewed hostilities" (1) does not address the question who is to impose sanctions, and (2) is not voted upon by the committee. One can similarly argue that NYB's comment that "If it is called to our attention that any user covered by this motion is replicating the problems of the date delinking dispute in other areas, I'd be open to reinstituting the remedies against him or her" means reinstating the original remedy should be done by the committee, not individual admins, and the restriction on amendment requests in the motion that did pass would seem to support that view.

In this case, nothing in the remedies or motion passed explicitly empowers administrator to do anything, and if the committee nonetheless thinks that administrators are empowered to act in those circumstances, it would be helpful to clarify the source of that authority - is it the "spirit" of the decision at issue (something necessarily vague and sometimes difficult to discern), the comments of the individual arbitrators (which may not have been reviewed, not to mention endorsed, by the full committee), or something else? Does this also extend to other cases unrelated to date delinking? Or, the committee might wish to pass a motion explicitly authorizing administrators to impose sanctions in this case, and retroactively confirming Shell's sanction, which would resolve the matter at hand without having to tackle the questions above. Tim Song (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recused MBisanz 05:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, but as I commented at one of the earlier discussions of this (as an editor, not an arbitrator), I've done so again here, suggesting a way to resolve this with a minimum of fuss. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I've also made a statement above, which is in addition to the AE comment. I'll restrict any further comments to the statement area above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• As a first comment, I think it is clear that the original return to the wide interpretation of the topic ban was both anticipated as a possibility and made explicit as the inevitable consequence of misbehavior ("very little patience towards renewed hostilities"). Therefore, there is no doubt that the wider sanction is valid and applies.

  That being said, that the topic ban of one editor has been widened does not give license to the other editors for disruptive behavior (or any form of antagonism); and that the role of Ohconfucius in this incident may well be worth a closer examination at enforcement. — Coren  00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I do agree that the wider sanction is valid and does apply. Also, that other editors should endeavor not to use these sanctions as clubs in debates. The role that other editors played in this may be looked at as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse, as I provided evidence in the original case. Steve Smith (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can a topic-banned editor create a new article that will settle a move/split dispute?

There's a long-standing dispute over the titling of this article Talk:Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435). But there also seems to be some new consensus that there ought to be two separate articles with intersections. I've proposed that User:Piotrus, currently under an Eastern European topic ban, email a new article - focusing on the Polish aspects of the conflict - to someone who would then put it in their userspace as the first step in the two-article solution. I think this process would be transparent enough to satisfy the edits-by-topic-banned-editors restrictions and work to settle the dispute. Novickas (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)