Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Doncram
Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Principle 5
- Finding 1.1
- Remedy 2.1
- List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
- Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Carptrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
- Carptrash (diff of notification of this thread on Username2's talk page)
- Doncram (diff of notification of this thread on Username3's talk page)
- Dudemanfellabra (diff of notification of this thread on Username4's talk page)
- Information about amendment request
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General_editor_probation. Not requesting any changes to principle 5 or finding 1.1; they're simply the relevant ones, and I wasn't clear if I needed to mention them, since the preloaded template mentioned all three things.
- Requesting something along the lines of "Doncram is indefinitely banned from commenting on contributors"
Statement by Nyttend
Since the case was closed, we've had at least two AE requests (Archive132 and Archive135) related to Doncram's pattern of commenting on contributors, not on content; in both cases, AE admins decided that Doncram's actions hadn't risen to the level of "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum". As a result, Doncram continues this pattern with edits such as this one: I think it is rotten that some editors feel that they can go around bashing me. Dudemanfellabra, obviously, was being rude, and it was reasonable for Carptrash to sense that, and to be offended. It is even more rude, in my opinion, for Dudemanfellabra to just clarify that he meant to bash me, instead. He meant to offend me, and to trumpet his disrespect to everyone else. Much of the case centered around Doncram's comments on contributors, not content, and if I understood rightly, remedy 2.1 was included to prohibit such actions. Is this what we permit people to say when they've been placed on a general civility probation? If the remedy were created with this kind of edits in mind, Arbcom needs to reword it in such a way that the AE admins will enforce Arbcom's intentions. If Arbcom were simply meaning to solve the general WP:NPA situation and didn't have this specifically in mind, they need to add this prohibition because their current remedies aren't working. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps my original statement wasn't clear — the only reason I mentioned Carptrash and Dudemanfellabra is that Doncram's mentioned both of them in the diff to which I linked, and they're the only ones (besides Doncram and me) to have participated in the thread in question. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Doncram
(Temporary reply: I will edit this to add some diffs) I myself wondered about opening a clarification question here, specifically about the tenor of remarks by editor Dudemanfellabra in several recent episodes, and about how I should respond. Nyttend links to my response to Dudemanfellabra in current discussion at wt:NRHP. Dudemanfellabra had said something negative directed at me but not completely clearly; another editor took offense; Dudemanfellabra explicitly clarified that he was targeting me; the other editor commented and I responded similarly that I have feelings too. I in fact do not like to be targeted and to be repeatedly bashed publicly.
As I then stated, I honestly don't know how to deal with an editor repeatedly bashing at me. I think it is wrong. I think we can in general have a guideline that editors should comment about edits and not editors, but what if one editor is following and repeatedly commenting in an antagonistic, personal way. I have been wondering if I should open a Request For Comment about Dudemanfellabra, about several recent comments.
I have chosen to respond in different ways: i simply deleted Dudemanfellabra's negative comments and all of the associated discussion section at my own Talk page in one recent case, where another editor was making complaint about good edits that I had made (e.g. this good edit) because I had not done something further on the associated Talk pages, and I was trying to respond positively enough, and Dudemanfellabra chimed in with a negative comment, and after one more comment by the other editor I deleted that all with mild "okay, chat over, thanks" edit summary.
In this post Dudemanfellabra calls my work "half-a**ed"; in the next edit I deleted that with edit summary "Delete swearing post, unwelcome". I am honestly offended at this tone and the words Dudemanfellabra is using.
Showing at wt:NRHP is another Dudemanfellabra comment calling my work out negatively, with 6 links to recent articles or drafts by me, with complaint about "just a lazy longquote from the nomination form as you're so inclined to do." I disagree completely about my work being "lazy" and I disagree completely about appropriate use of good quotes from NRHP nomination documents explaining why places are NRHP-listed. The discussion was not part of any policy or guideline discussion on quotes, it seems to me as just a side jab.
At wt:NRHP just now, in further discussion where Dudemanfellabra targets me, I thought I could not delete Dudemanfellabra's comment although I do feel it amounts to a personal attack--he even emphasizes that he is meaning to attack me personally--and I chose to respond as I did, by saying basically I did not like that. I think it is fair to observe that at least Dudemanfellabra seems to feel entitled to jab me at will, showing disrespect repeatedly. I request that Dudemanfellabra be advised to adhere to standards of civility, and to stop the repeated jabs.
The arbitration case may have not gone far enough to address a culture of negativity and repeated insulting that has grown over many years at WikiProject NRHP and in associated NRHP articles and personal Talk pages. It helped a lot that an interaction ban was put into place, eliminating one source of contention and negativity. The arbitration settlement is not a solution if other editors step up with contention and negativity, however. I rather think what's needed is for NRHP editors, at WikiProject NRHP, to speak up and say they don't want the negativity and the jabs. I was inviting that; what we have here is different, taking the "solution" process away from where it should be taken care of, IMHO. --doncram 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Kumioko
This submission is baseless and the comment that Doncram made, that Nyttend linked too, isn't even derogatory. I could list a dozen edits made by 3 editors alone that are far worse than that. He was simply responding too comments that were left by another editor and stated he had feelings too. I also want to add that the AE complaints that he is referring too were also thrown out for good reason. Editors shouldn't be expected to sit silently after repeated abuse. As I stated in a couple other places I think the Arbcom ban on him creating NRHP articles is a waste of Articles for Creations time. They created a special process just for Doncram because they recognize that its a waste of their time but they are forced into the situation by Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by {yet another user}
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- The thing here is that Doncram could already be placed under the restriction you suggest under the terms of his existing probation if, at WP:AE, the evidence were there to justify or if an individual administrator felt strongly enough to do so. Am I misreading this or is it being suggested that the sanction be modifying in order to encourage others to sanction them and/or make it easier for them to do so? Roger Davies talk 05:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Clarification request: Senkaku Islands
Initiated by Oda Mari (talk) at 06:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- SummerRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Shrigley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Acamar Eridanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notified. SummerRat [1], Lvhis [2], and Shrigley [3] except a sock User:Acamar Eridanus. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Oda Mari
In order to prevent edit warring, the usage of "Senkaku" and "Diaoyui" should be clarified like WP:NC-SoJ. User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat#Topic ban because of [4], [5] and other similar edits. Similar edits by other editors are [6], [7], and [8].
- I am withdrawing my request as this is not the right place. Oda Mari (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I am not at all familiar with the topic area, but this sounds like it is asking the committee to make a decision in favour of one or other naming convention. That is something the committee is likely to consider a content decision and thus outside their remit. They may consider endorsing a poll as they did for Ireland article names (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names) but it is likely that they would want to see evidence of a normal RfC having failed first - has this been tried since the arbitration case closed? If not then I suggest that as the best course of action is a structured RfC closed by a neutral administrator. Such an RfC would obviously be covered under the discretionary sanctions authorised by this case for "The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly" and so arbitration enforcement would be available for disruptive users (if necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Shrigley
NC-SoJ addresses the Sea of Japan, for which there is only one, unqualified internationally-accepted name in English. On the other hand, when discussing these islands, usage is normally split or hyphenated. News articles primarily dealing with China will say, "Diaoyu Islands, known as Senkaku in Japan"; articles dealing primarily with Japan will say "Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu in China". The article is titled with the Japanese name, "Senkaku Islands", simply because usage is split about 50-50, the alternative neutral English name (Pinnacle Islands) is not used much, and there's no consensus to go to the Chinese name, which would be equally biased but in the opposite direction.
SoJ dealt with the sustained problem of aggressive Korean meatpuppets going to any and every article to replace "Sea of Japan" with the obscure, parochial, and nonsensical English calque of "East Sea". No such problem exists on these Sino-Japanese islands, since the topic is of wider interest to the broader English-speaking community. However, Oda Mari has been rewriting long-stable China-related articles to erase all instances of "Diaoyu" or replace them with "Senkaku", butchering direct quotes[9] and obscuring the proper names of movements and organizations[10]: these from his own examples brought to C&A.
My advice to Oda Mari: don't seek some sort of "ruling" to prohibit the use of "Diaoyu" anywhere on Wikipedia, because:
- There is no such mechanism outside the most drastic arbitration measures, which I doubt could even do this because of #3;
- There is no longer a problem of sustained tendentious editing; even the last arbitration case was mostly unpleasant talk page discussion
- The real-world, reliable source conditions are ambivalent, and Wikipedia cannot deviate from them too much.
There is nothing for Arbcom to do here, except perhaps to admonish Oda Mari for stirring the pot.
Statement by EdJohnston
Since WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands provides for discretionary sanctions, and the recent edit war does not present any new issues not previously addressed by Arbcom, the best place to open a request would be at WP:Arbitration enforcement. As the committee stated in the Senkaku case, "When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior." Any article edits which change the name 'Senkaku' to 'Diaoyu' or vice versa can be presented at AE to decide if enforcement is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Lvhis
I completely agree what user Shrigley has stated above[11]. NC-SoJ is totally a WRONG example for this Diaoyu/Senkaku articles or case here. I was one of the participants of that WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. It was not to decide what is the correct name for these islands or for the wp articles. Now user SummerRat has been topic banned for 6 months. To apply same standard and to be fair and equal, user Oda Mari should also be topic banned. She has violated what WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands has banned more than what user SummerRat did.
As for what name should be for the relevant wp pages/articles, RfC is the way to go. The last "RfC" [12] has been expired on January 1, 2013. Although I oppose this "RfC" because it was done in the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here [13][14], I did not touch any pages related to this name until I saw so obvious and blatant POV and Original Research using Japanese name for Chinese stance, organization, etc. Now it may be the time to open a new RfC from a root question in related talk page.
In any case, Wikipendia cannot be the place for Original Research --Lvhis (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Qwyrxian
As one of the participants in the original arbitration, I'd like to weigh in: the clarification requested is not within the remit of ArbCom. Currently, there is no Wikipedia-wide guideline for the naming of the Senkaku Islands. There was an RfC (post-Arbitration), which found overwhelmingly that Senkaku Islands (and its closely related articles like Senkaku Islands dispute) should remain as currently named. But that RfC does not govern the usage in-text on other pages. Should we have a guideline like the one governing how we use Sea of Japan throughout Wikipedia? Sure. But that has to be a community based process, probably covered at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names), with notifications to appropriate Wikiprojects. But ArbCom does not have the authority to unilaterally make guidelines. I suppose ArbCom could "order" an RfC, but I don't think that's necessary in this case. If Oda Mari wants to have a naming convention, then we should do so. However, Lvhis's suggestion that we first re-hash the name of the main article has merit; if those who think the name should be changed want to pursue that, I think it's easier to handle that one first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
- I am not sure exactly what the Committee is being asked to do here. If it is to decide what is the correct name for these islands, as several commenters have noted, that is not something that we would handle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with EdJohnson above, I see nothing here that would not be better handled at AE as the proper venue. Courcelles 16:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per above, I'm not seeing there's anything for us to do here either (though I suppose renaming them by fiat to "Newyorkbrad Islands" might be fun). Roger Davies talk 05:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)