Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology

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

Touretzky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Touretzky

I haven't logged into my Wikipedia account in quite a while, so I was not aware that I had been dragged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology until a friend told me today that I'd been topic banned. I wish to protest this ban as unjustified.

A look at my edit history shows that I have not edited any Scientology-related article since 2007. (Been busy doing other things.) I contributed a few typo/grammar fixes in 2008, but none of those articles were about Scientology. It is unreasonable to topic ban me in 2009 when I've never received any kind of reprimand or caution about any edits I've made, and have done nothing wrong, even when I was editing Scientology articles back in 2007.

Second, the ruling criticizes me for editing the article on Applied Scholastics and for including a link to my StudyTech.org web site. The StudyTech.org web site is the primary reference for anyone who wants a critical look at the subject. That is why the current Applied Scholastics article, which I have not touched since 2007, continues to link to StudyTech.org; any article that did not link to this resource would be incomplete. I don't think it's Wikpedia policy that only non-experts can edit an article. And I contest the claim that my edits are self-interested. People write about what they know. Being a Scientology critic shouldn't prohibit me from editing Scientology-related articles any more than being a Scientologist would.

Being topic banned is humiliating and, in my case, unjustified. I'd like to request that this ban be rescinded.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Prem Rawat 2

Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]
Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]
Pergamino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]

Statement by Will Beback

WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2 closed in April. One of the remedies reads:

Revert limitations

3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

There is a dispute over the exact meaning of this remedy, especially the last sentence. User:Sandstein contends that I violated it and blocked me for it, while I believe that he is misinterpreting the remedy and the relevant edits. In response to a complaint at WP:AE#Teachings of Prem Rawat by Jayen466, Sandstein blocked both myself and Pergamino.

My first edit: [4] This edit added a section of material.
A series of edits by Pergamino: [5][6][7][8] These edits altered the text I'd posted, and moved it, but did not revert my addition of the basic text.
My second edit: [9] This edit undid Pergamino's edits (on account of his failure to discuss them).

So I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit, and hence there was no violation of the remedy. If the intent of the committee is to prohibit repeating the same edit within a one week period, which is what some folks seem to think it says, then it should be made explicit because it does not seem to say that now. If the block did not follow the existing wording of the remedy then I request an acknowledgment that there was an error. Will Beback talk 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to LessHeard vanU

There are two clauses to the remedy. The first prohibits making more than one revert in a week. LessHeard vanU seems to be proposing that it says no reverts are permitted. However the enforcement actually concerned the more complicated second clause, which says, I believe, that if an edit is reverted it may not be restored for a week. I contend that my original edit was only altered, not reverted, and that this situation is not covered by the language of the remedy. Will Beback talk 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

If content is added by party A which is then "altered" in part or whole by party B and party A then removes those alterations so that the content is the same as when party A added it, what other term than "reverting" applies to the actions of party A? Is Will Beback arguing that the wording only applies to the reverting of a (whole) revert? This would make the remedy comparable with WP:WHEEL - where it is only the reverting by an admin of another sysops revision of the original admin action that triggers that situation. My reading, as provided at AE, is that any edit that substantially undoes another contributors edits to a section of content to return it to the previous or original edit is a revert and not allowable until 8 days has elapsed since the first edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Will Beback; I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert"; you appear to argue that only a wholesale revert of the original edit (in this case the introduction of content) would thus mean you should not return the content (the revert noted in the remedy) within the 7 days, whereas my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

This is just in case I am expected to make a statement here as an involved party. With respect to the interpretation of the remedy at issue, I do not think that I have anything to say in addition to what I have already said in the discussion threads linked to above. Sandstein 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

"Revert limitations ¶ 3.1) ... Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." [Emphasis added]

LessHeard vanU (21:04) states, "I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert";..."

Will Beback (20:05) states, "I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit..." ([10])

LHvU (13:07) states, "...what other term than "reverting" applies...". LHvU (21:04) states, "...my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy."

This clarification seems to turn on whether Pergamino did or did not take an action defined as a "revert" during these four edits: Pergamino 17:56, Pergamino 18:04, Pergamino 18:08, Pergamino 18:14; and also, what other term than "reverting" applies to Pergamino's four edits.

A dictionary definition of "revert" requires a return to a former condition:

Random House/Dictionary.com "revert": "1. to return to a former habit, practice, belief, condition, etc..."

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, but they don't seem to have been changes that returned WB's text to a former condition. Thus they don't seem to described by a dictionary definition of "revert".

Wikipedia Help makes a distinction between "revert" and "reword", as well as between "revert" and "modifying":

Help:Reverting#When to revert reads: "...if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit..."' [Emphasis added]

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, that appear to be consistent with "reword" and "modifying", which Wikipedia Help distingishes from "revert" or "reverting".

My analysis of the above facts concludes that Pergamino did not revert Will Beback's original edit, as defined by both a dictionary and Wikipedia Help. Without a revert by Pergamino, Will Beback was free to revert Pergamino's reword and modifying edits without violating WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations 3.1. Milo 03:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: How to appeal to the community

Look, if you don't want to handle an issue, say so, and help me work out how it should be taken to the community. Archiving it while several unresponded issues are still up is just disrespectful.

The case involved huge amounts of procedural issues, that, at the least, meant the case could not be decided fairly, had no previous dispute resolution, ignored the belated dispute resolution entirely, and had documented wagon-circling by the Arbcom to protect one of their own, while going on a grand fishing expedition check of every admin action I had ever made in order to find something - anything - to justify the case against me being taken long after the person in question had been unblocked. Furthermore, I can't help ut think this was all an effort to subvert the Arbcom elections, which I was running in. At the least, this deserves a promise never to allow such a thing to happen again.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by arbitrators

Appeals of Committee decisions may be made to Jimbo Wales. If you then want to appeal his response to someone else, you'll have to discuss the proper procedure with him personally.

As far as the substance of your comments goes: we are not able to act on your request because you have not been able to provide a consistent answer about what it is you're actually asking for. Going through your comments on this request and the last one, I can see at least eight distinct requests (or what looks to me like requests):

That we declare all findings in the case, including those not about you, invalid
That we rescind the restriction on your seeking adminship in the future which was left in place after the last change to the case
That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the case should not have been accepted
That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the handling of the case suffered from procedural errors
That we should change the text of the case pages to be an analysis of the mistakes made during the case
That we should apologize for our handling of the case
That we should admit wrongdoing in regards to our handling of the case
That we should promise not to repeat our handling of the case

Some of these—broadly, the latter six—are, in my opinion, reasonable requests; the first two, however, are not. I see no substantive reason to rescind our finding that Matthew Hoffman was innocent of the charges against him; and I do not believe it would be in the best interests of the project for you to seek adminship without talking to us.

Generally speaking, though, it is incumbent on you to tell us precisely what action you want us to take; please feel free to just name items off the list above, if that helps, but we're not going to come up with something on our own when there's no guarantee that it will satisfy you. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Anynobody

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

Anynobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Anynobody

I was topic banned in the recent second Scientology arbitration case, for stuff I did months before the first Scientology arbitration case which occurred in summer 2008.

There is something fundamentally wrong with banning me from this topic since not only was this "evidence" ignored in the first case but I also haven't violated the terms given from that case.

(Honestly even then I wasn't pushing a POV, it's illustrating differences between the accurate and forged DD214s at a glance since they can't be read in a thumbnail. Seriously compare them:

Fake* DD214 highlighting differences between it
and this, the real DD214
Fake* DD214 without highlights*The Scientology document is meant to give the reader the idea that Hubbard earned awards and achievements he did not by appearing to be a genuine Naval document. It is not genuine, therefore it is false or fake. Calling the false DD214 an "alternative" is also like calling a fake ID an alternative.Please understand I am explaining this least anyone get the impression that Hubbard is being somehow disparaged for the cause of bringing down Scientology, rather than the simple truth which it is. He certainly isn't the only person to have claimed awards and honors they didn't earn.

None of the graphics I made are meant to disparage anyone or anything. The image of DC-8s arriving on Earth for Xenu was meant to replace an already made illustration created by modifying a photo of NASA's DC-8 in space with the word Xenu on its tail.

Lastly, this arbitration reaffirmed that I previously harassed Justanother. I submit that the whole allegation if harassing Justanother (aka Justallofthem) stems from my attempt to get a WP:RFC/U going regarding his behavior. After the last arbitration I've not had any real contact with him, and he's been banned for the same type of behavior I was trying to call attention to in the first place. WP:HA#What harassment is not says A user warning for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. I've never called for him to be banned or demanded punishment, all I asked for was a RFC when it appeared he was having similar problems with several editors through giving the community an opportunity to comment. Anynobody(?) 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]