Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Arbitrator views and discussion: comment |
MarshalN20 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
*I helped promote the GA article on [[Falkland Islands]], after being allowed to do so by arbitration committee (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568317518#Motion_1:_MarshalN20]). <small>I'll add that the expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" shows how much faith the lot of you had in me. But, hey, it did turn out better than you expected; right?</small> |
*I helped promote the GA article on [[Falkland Islands]], after being allowed to do so by arbitration committee (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568317518#Motion_1:_MarshalN20]). <small>I'll add that the expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" shows how much faith the lot of you had in me. But, hey, it did turn out better than you expected; right?</small> |
||
*I've also extensively edited the article on the [[Peru national football team]] article (Latin American culture & sports article). |
*I've also extensively edited the article on the [[Peru national football team]] article (Latin American culture & sports article). |
||
::Everything written by The_ed17 below is really beside the point and, IMO, seems very [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground-ish]]. |
|||
::He mentions "several previous enforcement and '''clarification requests''''", but only provides a list of enforcement issues (some of which, unsurprisingly, have been dealt with him) that resulted in warnings. |
|||
::Lastly, my decision to edit or not edit Latin American topics is a personal one. At this time, I prefer to avoid the topic altogether. However, my interests may change later, and I am requesting this clarification specifically to avoid further problems in the future. |
|||
::Ultimately, the purpose of the topic ban is not to punish. The arbitration case focused on my actions in ''Juan Manuel de Rosas'' and ''Paraguayan War''. Yet, ArbComm branded Cambalachero and I with an imprecise history ban over a huge region (Latin America). A clarification is needed not to "neuter" my ban, but to tie overtly lose ends (and prevent further headaches on this matter).--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] | [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Thryduulf === |
=== Statement by Thryduulf === |
Revision as of 00:57, 28 November 2013
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Argentine History
Initiated by MarshalN20 | Talk at 18:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Link to relevant decision
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Cambalachero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cambalachero is aware of this request (or should soon be due to [1])
Statement by MarshalN20
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:
- Was the topic ban on "Latin American history" one meant for diplomatic & military history (the classical definition of "history")?
- Can Cambalachero and I edit articles that only peripherally deal with history (i.e., culture articles such as sports, music, economics, society, food, modern politics, etc.)?
Additional relevant evidence (from my part):
- I wrote the FA article on Pisco Sour (Latin American culture) after the arbitration committee decision.
- I helped promote the GA article on Falkland Islands, after being allowed to do so by arbitration committee (see [4]). I'll add that the expression "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself" shows how much faith the lot of you had in me. But, hey, it did turn out better than you expected; right?
- I've also extensively edited the article on the Peru national football team article (Latin American culture & sports article).
- Everything written by The_ed17 below is really beside the point and, IMO, seems very battleground-ish.
- He mentions "several previous enforcement and clarification requests'", but only provides a list of enforcement issues (some of which, unsurprisingly, have been dealt with him) that resulted in warnings.
- Lastly, my decision to edit or not edit Latin American topics is a personal one. At this time, I prefer to avoid the topic altogether. However, my interests may change later, and I am requesting this clarification specifically to avoid further problems in the future.
- Ultimately, the purpose of the topic ban is not to punish. The arbitration case focused on my actions in Juan Manuel de Rosas and Paraguayan War. Yet, ArbComm branded Cambalachero and I with an imprecise history ban over a huge region (Latin America). A clarification is needed not to "neuter" my ban, but to tie overtly lose ends (and prevent further headaches on this matter).--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
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 [5] - 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:
- The geopolitical and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983.
- Other aspects of the history of Latin America that are directly related to geopolitical and/or military events that occurred before December 1983.
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)
Statement by The ed17
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:
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#MarshalN20
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20 – "MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions"
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138#MarshalN20
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#MarshalN20
- Unblock discussion earlier this month – "Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, ... I am lifting the block". Is this "well clear"?
- AN block review that led to this. I'm going to quote Laser brain's brilliant comments here as well, as they cut right to the heart of this situation:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote
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)
- Also tangentially related is the Wikilove Marshal has sent out to everyone who participated in the AN discussion, ex. [6] [7] [8]. But why does someone who states that he will not be editing Latin American topics until after his topic ban expires need to change that ban to allow him to edit Latin American topics? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Awaiting any further statements before commenting. (Also in terms of timing, please note that this is a long holiday weekend for many in the US.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)