Requests for clarification and amendment

Initiated by Red Slash at 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Macedonia 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 29

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Red Slash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2#Disputed_article_movement.2Frenaming_injunction_extension
• Allow move requests to take place which would propose for Republic of Macedonia to move to Macedonia and for the disambiguation page to be moved to Macedonia (disambiguation).

Statement by User:Red Slash

It's been over four years since the case was decided, and I think the country article has primary topic with regard to the name "Macedonia". If I think that Cheddar cheese has primary topic for "cheddar" I can file a move request, but I feel unsure if I can do that for Macedonia since there was this case that seems to have prohibited move requests. But the reasoning seems to not be as pressing. This is not a request for some grand rescoping of the decision; simply a request that we let the community revisit a decision from four years ago made under some duress as to the primary topic of "Macedonia".

Statement by Fut.Perf.

In answer to SilkTork's question "Have there been any discussions since the case closed?": the solutions brought about by the Arbcom-imposed RfC process (WP:NCMAC) have been remarkably successful and stable. Very few serious disagreements have occurred ever since then at least among experienced and established editors (occassional expressions of unhappiness from pro-"FYROM" driveby editors notwithstanding). Even many of the Greek editors who would have been most vocally against it at the time of the conflict have been helping to uphold the consensus against driveby revert-warriors. For ease of reference, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles is the main RfC page regarding the main Republic of Macedonia article, which Red Slash wishes to review now. If you look over it, you will see that the decision was taken on the basis of quite a large amount of carefully assembled data and quite a lot of well-informed independent input. This is in striking contrast to all earlier, less formal attempts at a solution, which basically had all ended up being shouted down and bogged down by POV stonewalling. The decision on this particular point was based on a slight majority of votes, with the alternative (country article at plain "Macedonia") also receiving substantial support and solid arguments. On the whole, after four years, I don't think the Arbcom decision should be taken as abrogating the general principle that "consensus can change", but if a new discussion is to be initiated we should make sure that it will again be done under close surveillance of clueful and neutral administrators to avoid a relapse into the kind of POV-warring we used to see regularly before 2009. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I think we all forgot to mention that the original Macedonia 2 decision actually contains quite explicit language answering Red Slash's proposal. Here it is:

"... Since consensus and policy can change, these binding decisions may be reviewed at appropriate times by that same administrator(s), or other uninvolved administrators. If the community is unable to find an administrator, or group of administrators, to address the situation, it may request that the Arbitration Committee appoint one. WP:GAME-ing a situation to head towards stalemate resolution will be highly frowned upon."

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taivo

As another participant in ARBMAC2, I heartily concur with Future Perfect's appraisal. And I also have been pleasantly surprised at how stable the solution has become, with opponents during the process becoming current allies to protect the consensus compromise against the "drive-by" editors pushing a nationalist agenda. --Taivo (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The wording is: "No Macedonia-related article, as defined in #All related articles under 1RR, shall be moved/renamed until after the community comes to a solution for the naming dispute. If any unauthorized move does occur, any uninvolved administrator may expeditiously revert it." My interpretation of that is that no move should take place until a community discussion, such as move request discussion, has taken place. So I don't see that it is forbidding such a discussion. The case was initiated because there were contentious page moves without having gone through the page move request procedure. I would say that a community move request would play a significant part in "a solution for the naming dispute". Have there been any discussions since the case closed? Worth having a look to see if there have been; if not, then I see no reason to object to a move request discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what I am saying is that I don't see a need for amendment, as the remedy already encourages community discussion. In deciding on any future community discussions, it is always wise to refer to previous discussions on the same issue. Fut.Perf. has indicated there has been some discussion on this issue, so best practice would be to consider that discussion before deciding to initiate a new discussion. Also to be borne in mind is the current stability; however, it is not in the Committee's authority to impose content decisions, nor to prevent the community discussing them. It is well within the community's power to restrict any user who makes disruptive move requests; though worth pointing out that a user making a well reasoned move request supported by reliable sources should not be regarded as disruptive, unless they are making repeated requests on the same article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As has been pointed out, there was an extensive and supervised naming discussion after the case closed. This is similar to what happened in the Ireland naming case. In both cases, the discussion seems to to have brought some stability to the topic area. From a personal point of view, the intent of the moratoria on name discussions was not just stability for stability's sake, but to reduce the distraction of such discussions so that editors could continue to work on improving the content of the article (the bit after the title that people actually read to learn about the topic area). Could anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the topic area give some idea of whether the articles themselves have improved much in these four years or not? In general, I would hope that people would place more of a priority on improving article content than on arguing over the name of the articles, but that may be too optimistic. To answer the question posed, I'm not seeing any need for amendment here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues (and Fut. Perf.) here. The remedy does not prohibit re-opening orderly discussion seeking consensus about possible moves. There really is not need for us to amend,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with my colleagues that amendment is not necessary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I also concur; the remedy does not stand in the way of orderly discussion, therefore no amendment is needed. Courcelles 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Fram (talk) at 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s topic ban on article creation

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

• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [1]
• Carrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [2]

Statement by Fram

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (RAN for short) has been topic banned from creating articles. He has recently requested another user, Carrite, to move a few pages RAN recently created in his user space to the main space (see User talk:Carrite#Migration. It is unclear whether this violates his topic ban or not. Carrite was a party to the previous case so is presumably aware of the topic ban. Note; this is a request for clarification, no action against anyone involved is wanted here. Fram (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Here's the question: is RAN banned from all article-starting processes (AfC or use of an unambiguous, supervisable proxy) or is he banned from starting articles himself? And here's the underlying issue: is this topic-ban intended to prevent something or is it punitive for past behavior? To wit, is it the intent of ArbCom to stop the creation of new articles with copyright problems by RAN or is the intent of ArbCom to stop RAN from such contributions altogether? Creation though either Articles for Creation or a second party forces a second set of eyes on the creation to ensure copyright compliance — which is no issue on the two pieces here. I feel RAN's creation of new articles in this manner follows the intent if not the spirit of the topic ban. I do follow Fram in asking for clarification on the matter, of course. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WormTT. Per "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." — These articles are verifiable, productive, NPOV, copyright clean. As for my "independent reasons for making such efforts," that would involve my desire to see a productive content-creator return to work on the project. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN. I still haven't had a news conference changing my gender yet, I'll be sure to let you know if I ever do though. Until then I'm a "he." xoxo, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker. Exactly. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf. I don't think one could come up with a more bureaucratic proposal if they tried. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom. Try this proposed motion for size: "ArbCom acknowledges that RAN may create articles through the Articles for Creation process or through use of a unambiguous proxy. Any editor moving an article into mainspace is cautioned that they become responsible for any copyright violations contained therein. Richard Norton is encouraged to seek formal amendment of his case by ArbCom at his soonest convenience."

And then, get rid of the ill-considered topic ban on creations, which was a really bad decision in his case. Limit him to 5 starts a month for 12 months or some other reasonable number. He'll be monitored with respect to copyvio, trust me. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Norton

I want to show that I can create new content free from copyright violation then have it vetted by a second person and if acceptable, posted. My goal is to show that I can create well-written content and then apply to have my ban lifted. I want to show Arbcom my newest entries. The ban should not be permanent punishment for past deeds. "Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. " This is exactly what Carrite has done, note that he doesn't believe that the quote parameter should ever be used in a citation, and has removed the quotes from the text when he posts what I have created. You are all welcome to peruse my standard biographies to see if I can have my restriction lifted:

• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Lawson ▶ John Lawson (cyclist)
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Gus Lawson ‎▶ Gus Lawson
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Iver Lawson (cyclist)
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Iver Lawson (publisher)
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Edward Everett Grosscup ‎
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Daniel Spader Voorhees
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Ellis Roosevelt
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Charles O'Connor Hennessy
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Samuel Train Dutton
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Luther Tracy Townsend
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Arthur Chamberlin Wise
• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Brandram Boileau Ussher

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nyttend backup

During the Doncram case, Doncram was banned from creating new articles, but nobody (even those of us who were on the other side) objected to the idea of Doncram creating of articles via AFC. In the same way, if RAN's ban specifically said "no creating pages in mainspace", it would be a violation of the spirit of the ban for him to create a page in userspace and move it, because nobody's reviewing it, but it wouldn't be wrong if someone else were to move it, since the problem has been that RAN has created copyvios in the past. RAN shouldn't be given any sanction whatsoever for these pages, unless they violate Wikipedia:Copyright violations or some other standard to which everyone is held. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re: RAN)

As a way forward perhaps the committee should amend the case with a motion along the lines of (but probably simplified from) below:

• RAN may create new articles in his userspace but may not move them to any other namespace.
• RAN may ask any administrator or other user with the Reviewer userright to review his new articles subject to the following conditions:
  1. He must explicitly state that the draft article must be checked to ensure it contains no copyright violations. Linking to the case for explanation/clarification is encouraged but not required.
  2. He must explicitly state that any user who moves the draft article to another namespace takes full responsibility for its contents, including any copyright violations it contains. Any user moving a draft created by RAN is encouraged to explicitly acknowledge their taking of this responsibility.
  • These statements must be included at the top of the draft article page from at or before the time a review is requested and the continuously until at least the draft has been accepted or rejected. The form of words should be approved by one or more non-recused arbitrators or nominated administrators prior to the first review being requested.
  1. Users reviewing RAN's draft articles must keep a log of all drafts reviewed, explicitly noting for each draft whether it contained copyright violations or not.
• Any drafts moved to the mainspace that have not been certified by a reviewer or administrator as free from copyright violations, may be speedily deleted as if they were a copyright violation without further investigation. The user moving such a page takes full responsibility and may be subject to sanction as if they had written the copyright violating material themselves.
• Any reviewed drafts moved to the mainspace subsequently found to have contained copyright violations at the time of the move must be noted in the log. The person certifying the draft as not containing copyright violations takes full responsibility for the contents and may be subject to sanction as if they had written the copyright violating material themselves.
• RAN's permission to create draft articles may be suspended for up to 3 months per offence by a consensus of uninvolved administrators at Arbitration Enforcement in any of the following circumstances:
  • Asking another user to review a draft that does not contain the statements required by conditions 1 and 2
  • Asking another user to review a draft that contains copyright violations.
• After three offences the maximum suspension shall be 12 months.
• This is in addition to the provisions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Enforcement.
• Administrators who have reviewed RAN's draft articles shall not automatically be considered involved for the purposes of any Arbitration Enforcement action.
• RAN may appeal this sanction to the committee after 6 months and at least 10 drafts have been reviewed and found not to contain copyright violations.

The aim of this is to:

1. Make it clear that RAN may create article drafts if he makes it clear they must be verified free of copyright violations
2. Make it clear that users accepting these drafts take all responsibility for the drafts
3. Provide a route for RAN to rehabilitate himself as a contributor that has clearly defined boundaries to keep him on course and protect the project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

I would like to note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram was a workable solution for how an editor could be restricted from creating problematic articles, yet at the same time be allowed to contribute. While the eventual outcome involved the subject being further topic banned in an Arb Enforcement request. I agree that it should not be ArbCom's place to on a whim amend the sanctions against this user, but feel that an amendment to allow an Articles For Creation submission regime would be a good compromise. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse from this particular request. --Rschen7754 09:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I consider this a violation of the spirit of the topic ban, though since it is not explicitly prohibited in the remedy I cannot fault RAN for his actions. Procedurally, the best way of proceeding would be to tighten the remedy by motion on this page. AGK [•] 13:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's the age old question of proxying edits. RAN is banned from creating pages and Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. I don't think there's any need for clarification, it seems pretty clear to me already. Having said that, I don't see the need for any sanctions, just a clear message that if RAN wants to create articles he needs to appeal the ban. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said, it was pretty clear to me already, but to make sure everyone knows where I stand, Carrite is perfectly within his rights to create the articles, but they're totally on his head. Any repercussions from creating the article are entirely on Carrite's head, therefore he should be absolutely clear that the changes are verifiable and productive. The independent reason is "because Wikipedia doesn't have an article on these subjects and this draft I have found and checked is high quality". Richard shouldn't be putting it upon anyone to create articles for him, and should be appealing his ban if he feels he is able to create articles. Worm^TT(talk) 08:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The purpose of the topic-ban is to preclude RAN from creating new articles because too many of the articles he did create contained copyright infringements. If someone can suggest a mechanism for ensuring that no further infringements will take place, that should be discussed here. However, simply posting a request that an editor move the articles, with no provision for any vetting or checking, is obviously unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Newyorkbrad. Any editor who takes it upon him or herself to move an article written by RAN in his userspace takes on the responsibility for ensuring that the content meets all criteria of the project, including but not limited to ensuring that there is no copyvio. If an editor moves an article by RAN to article space and it turns out to be copyvio, the moving editor is completely responsible for the copyvio and is subject to the usual sanctions of the project for such edits. In other words, if you haven't personally checked it for copyvio, it's on your head. I also agree with WTT that RAN should be appealing the ban rather than using a back door to get his articles published. Risker (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with my colleagues. RAN is trying to work around his restriction and should stop doing so. Carrite may publish the material if they wish but only by assuming complete and sole responsibility for it.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A sensible and appropriate response to a request to proxy edit to circumvent a ban, is to consider suggesting that the banned user appeals the ban. That would be a more helpful and less potentially disruptive route than to agree to the proxying. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RAN was restricted to protect the project from copyright infringement; if Carrite checks every single article, accepts the responsibility of making sure that no infringing material is present, then I'd say that, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with what he does. If, on the other hand, there is no quality control, then that's a problem. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with what my colleagues have stated above. I also agree with what Carrite said: "Richard Norton should seek formal amendment of his case by ArbCom at his soonest convenience." One problem with proxying (other people taking responsibility for the content) is that it can be difficult to carry out copyright checks for articles that refer to sources that are not online. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---