Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence: Ludwigs2 needs to be included here, since he's the main other person who's been involved in the discussions in question.
Line 12: Line 12:
* {{userlinks|Mathsci}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Mathsci}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Captain Occam}}
* {{userlinks|Captain Occam}}
* {{userlinks|Ludwigs2}}
; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Captain_Occam&diff=412295198&oldid=411614580]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Captain_Occam&diff=412295198&oldid=411614580]

Revision as of 21:42, 6 February 2011

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Mathsci (talk) at 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
WP:ARBR&I
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

  • Captain Occam is site-banned from wikipedia for a period to be determined by ArbCom. The topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin could be extended to the two users privately mentioned in evidence to ArbCom.

Statement by Mathsci

Members of ArbCom have been aware for some time of ongoing issues of meatpuppetry following the topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and later on Ferhago the Assassin, per WP:SHARE. Evidence has been provided privately to ArbCom about two users associated off-wiki with both Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin.

At the end of January, unprompted, Captain Occam's editing on wikipedia entered a new stage of disruption. Members of ArbCom are already aware of the public letter written under his real name to the Economist. He has used this letter on wikipedia as a springboard to reopen the closed case WP:ARBR&I and renew allegations on wikipedia that have not been accepted by ArbCom. Captain Occam appears to be fanning the flames in several venues, entirely against the spirit of his topic ban. His edits at the moment suggest that, not only is he still in conflict with users previously involved in WP:ARBR&I but no longer active on the articles, but that he is in conflict with ArbCom itself. He has not moved on from the ArbCom case, nor does he seem to take any responsibility for his own actions.

Previous procedural disruption occurred in December when ArbCom had already voted to lift my topic ban on their own initiative. In these circumstances, and in view of his lack of openness in addressing the outstanding issues of meatpuppetry, even when questioned by arbitrators, some form of site-ban unfortunately now seems necessary. Diffs can be provided on request, but almost all recent non-article space postings are relevant. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Captain Occam

I need to make it clear what’s happened here. I wrote a letter to The Economist which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name, and suggesting some possible reforms in Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process. Since the reforms I had in mind could only be implemented by the board of trustees, I brought up my letter in Jimbo Wales’ user talk to make sure he was aware of it. My initial post in Jimbo Wales’ user talk also did not mention the R&I case by name, although it referred to one editor (Varoon Arya) who had been involved in it. Jimbo Wales made it clear that he thought this was an issue worth discussing ([2], [3]) and Cool Hand Luke appeared to think so also. ([4] [5]). I think it’s fairly clear that none of this, at this stage, was a violation of my topic ban.

After I had started this thread, several other past participants in the R&I case noticed either my letter or the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, and figured out that the R&I case was what I was referring to. It’s not hard to figure out, since that’s the only arbitration case I’ve been directly involved in. Two of them (Mathsci and Muntuwandi) showed up in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk challenging me about specifics, and a third (Slrubenstein) made a pair of personal attacks against me in someone else’s user talk. (The attacks have now been deleted using RevDel, so I can’t link to the diffs.) Before these editors began challenging me, I’d had no prior contact with any of them in the past month.

The real mistake I made here was a lack of foresight. Even though my initial statement in Jimbo Wales’ user talk did not violate my topic ban or refer directly to any of these editors, I should have predicted that they would view it as an invitation to engage me in further discussion about the R&I case. That said, I need to emphasize that my intention was not to continue this conflict, and I had no involvement with Mathsci, Muntuwandi or Slrubenstein over this issue until they chose to become involved in it themselves.

I would still like to be able to work towards improving Wikipedia’s dispute resolution system, if there’s a way for me to do that without it being interpreted as continuing the R&I conflict. I am open to advice from arbitrators about whether that’s possible or not, and if ArbCom decides that it isn’t, I’ll stay out of discussions about this from now on. Maunus has offered to become my mentor, which is something else I’m willing to accept if ArbCom decides it’s appropriate. However, I think a site-ban is obviously excessive here. I’m currently in the middle of a major expansion of the William Beebe article, Ferahgo (who would presumably also be covered by a site-ban, due to WP:SHARE) is midway through writing an article about Gerhard Heilmann’s book The Origin of Birds, and we are essentially the only editors working on these articles. If we get site-banned, both of these articles would have to remain indefinitely in their current half-finished state. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

  • comment I don't think that topic bans imposed at wikipedia extend to other public news media - I think that censoring someone because of participating in the public debate about wikipedia would be a bad move, and promote a kind of wikipedia community we don't want. People should be allowed to discuss their wiki experiences, also the bad ones, in other venues without that having any bearings on their editing. However, the appeal to Jimbo was clearly a bad move on the part of Captain Occam and does suggest that he is having more than a little trouble dropping the issue here on wikipedia. I think Mathsci is als inflaming the issue and that a more becoming mode of action for him would have been to simply leave it alone, since Occam's communication with Jimbo is not really harming anyone and is unlikely to have any effect on the particular issues covered by the R&I topic ban. I think an indef ban is excessive if Captain Occam recognizes having been in error and shows a will to proceed to become a valuable editor in other venues as he is currently showing good progress towards (e.g. at William Beebee). ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This accusation must be supported by diffs. Mathsci levels several serious charges - meatpuppetry, disruption, reopening a closed case, renew allegations, several venues, violation of topic ban, irresponsibility. The sanctions called for are equally serious - site banning. It really seems inadequate to airily allude to "almost all recent non-article postings" to support multiple highly serious allegations - serious accusations require serious evidence to be taken seriously. Zarboublian (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here Captain Occam says, "I wrote a letter to The Economist which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name." On Jimbo's talk page he wrote, "The Economist edited my letter...[and] also left out where I mentioned who was the user whose reason for leaving I described in detail." Professor marginalia (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Ohconfucius)

Initiated by Ohconfucius (talk) at 09:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
Remedies
  • 18): "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account "Ohconfucius" to edit"
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
  • n/a

Amendment 1

  • Suggested motion: "Remedy #18 ("Ohconfucius accounts") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use alternate accounts subject to normal community guidelines.

Statement by Ohconfucius

It has been three months since the previous amendment concerning me on the date-delinking case was passed. During this time, in addition to my content work, I have made edits to a large number of articles using scripts in furtherance to my stated objective to ensure date formats of articles are uniform, in compliance with WP:MOSNUM.

Since my last amendment, I have continued to perform valuable work in good faith for Wikipedia. 2010 Nobel Peace Prize has been declared a Good Article mainly through my efforts; I have also made significant improvements to the coverage of Paul Chater and Robert Hotung, Ho Tung Gardens, amongst others, in addition to a large number of minor, “gnoming” edits.

I hope to write a bot largely based on my WP:MOSNUMscript to reduce the manual gnoming effort, thus freeing more time for content-related work, which I love the most. I believe that the thousands of edits made using this script in article space in the last three months have proved to be highly successful, with almost no false positives and to my knowledge no objections by editors. To execute same by bot, I hope to submit the proposal, under an alternative account, for approval of BAG in due course once this restriction is lifted.

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 18 arbitrators, a majority is 10.
Support:
  1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shell babelfish 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger talk 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Concur with the rationale offered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Lightmouse)

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC) ; Case affected : Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)[reply]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  • 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."
  • supplement): "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment:

Statement by Lightmouse

  • A single automation task was authorised by the Bot Approvals Group. See: Lightbot approval. The task ran between 18 December and 14 January for about 2500 edits. Lightbot has been dealing with units of measurement since June 2008 and has played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and smarter linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. The task recently approved by BAG was confined to adding conversions to feet and miles. I'd like Arbcom to give BAG the scope to permit Lightbot to convert inches in addition to miles and feet.

Question by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Given that the motion says that the account is authorized for a single automation task authorized by BAG, I think what Jclemens says would still apply. If BAG amended the single automation task (be it in terms of duration or nature), then the motion is still being complied with (making this request for amendment somewhat unnecessary). Is that correct? Or is this a drafting issue where arbitrators meant to write (in that motion) that the account is limited to the single automation task authorized by BAG (as set out at Lightbot 5) and that this task cannot be amended at any time without prior approval from ArbCom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gigs

There were some minor concerns voiced about the most recent run, but nothing too serious. Jclemens wording seems to be the best way to clarify, as it was my understanding all along that the limitation was to one active task, not one task ever. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 18 arbitrators, a majority is 10.
Support:
  1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. I am not sure that the limitation to a single task (or group of related tasks) is essential, but I have no problem with moving one step at a time here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't see any issue with this. Shell babelfish 03:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger talk 11:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=412421387"