Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Comment from Cla68
Find the bozo(s), then ban them from the article and it's talk page. Issue resolved. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Crotalus horridus
I strongly urge acceptance of this case. Rand-related articles are yet another dark corner of Wikipedia where POV-pushing has flourished for far too long. When we compare coverage of Rand with other fringe topics, like Lyndon LaRouche or Scientology, it is obvious that Rand and her works have gotten far too sympathetic a treatment, and that WP:NPOV has been systematically ignored. ArbCom must also take into account that many of the editors of the Rand articles are Objectivists. Editing Wikipedia articles requires compromise, but the official Objectivist position is against compromise. In Rand's words: "There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction." Since Objectivists by their own admission are not willing to engage in the necessary preconditions to edit controversial Wikipedia articles, all of them should be banned from articles related to Rand or Objectivism. *** Crotalus *** 17:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ryan Postlethwaite
This is very much a procedural comment, but in case people are unaware, the mediation was declined by the mediation committee because not all parties agreed to take part.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Further comment by Steve
To say that Wikipedia has become the eighth wonder of the world is an understatement. It has engaged in an astonishing growth driven by contributions from ordinary and extraordinary people. This has been made possible by the ever-adjusting, self-generated, and self-applied Wikipedia policies. But it still has one area that plagues it - that threatens with lawsuits, and that tarnishes it's reputation for accuracy, that stands between it and the reputation it deserves: the crap that appears in the controversial articles and the edit wars that produces that crap.

Articles on politics, religion, philosophy, celebrities, sports figures... they attract fans and haters. This wouldn't matter if they were willing to put an honest article above their personal views. It is no compromise to do that. It is what we accepted as the purpose and the rules we operate under. But some people can't or won't and they end up using WP to game their end goal which might be a rabid fan's glorification of an idol, or it might be an angry hater's drive to diminish or demean a popular figure or movement. These people might have worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, in areas where their personal agenda didn't get in the way, but while they are pushing POV they are the problem. There have been times in the past when the Rand articles have suffered from bloat and bad editing from fans. But this last month or so it has gone entirely the other way.

The only real cure for this is to identify those editors and to ban them from editing on that subject matter. It leaves them with literally millions of other articles to edit. With that done, there can be a massive increase in the efficiency that results from the sharp decrease of these tedious feuds and wars. And the remaining good editors, who do put a reasonable article first, can get on with real editing. I ask the clerks to take the time and suffer through an examination of the edits and the talk page entries (you have my sympathies) and identify those people that are editing out of an agenda and ban them from editing Rand or Objectivist related articles. Place a banner at the top of the talk page stating that those who show a pattern of editing to support a personal agenda on this article will be banned from any further editing on this article or those related to it. Make this the trial run of an approach that you already have the power to put in place. I think of it as the last major necessary growth that Wikipedia policy needs to sort itself out.

Response to Comment by Ryan Postlethwaite by Steve

Mr. Postlewaite is correct. On about the 6th day, nearing the end of the deadline, at his request, I explicitly declined. I aprove of mediation as a process and rarely does it fail to yield better results. But in this case, the format of that particular request looked somewhat like being asked to sit down to play poker at a table where the deck was stacked (not by the admin, but in the request made and participants). But my reason for declining is that neither rabid fans nor rabid haters of an article are going to change following a mediation, not when it is just an excuse, or a mechanism, for pursuing an agenda. I see ArbCom as the only process that can make real progress towards Wikipedia's goals. --Steve (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by JoshuaZ
I'm slightly worried that the ArbCom will take this as an opportunity to make a ruling on content issues. However, I think this case does need to be taken given that there has been canvassing by pro-Rand editors. This canvassing has occurred on external websites. See this for example which was started by User:Kjaer. This needs to be dealt with. If the ArbCom does examine this case they should take a broader look than just what is happening directly on the Ayn Rand article and consider looking at issues surrounding the various articles related to objectivism in general. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
User:Peter Damian has referred to other editors as deranged, lunatics and fanatics User talk:Jimbo Wales. He says he "stands by" the remarks even after being advised they are inappropriate (see User talk:Peter Damian). He's referred to the work of other editors as rubbish Talk:Ayn Rand. He's also overtly promoted off wiki discussion. As all of these actions are disruptive, uncivil, and unhelpful to promoting a collegial atmosphere and advancing the work of improving the encyclopedia, I think it would be appropriate for Arbcom to apply a remedy. This activity clearly violates the article's probationary status, not to mention other standard guidelines for behavior. In fairness I should mention that I am guilty of mimicking one of Damian's thread title's, but have since refactored since mirroring bad behavior, though amusing and ironic, wasn't helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: WP:RANDARB
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * User:TallNapoleon


 * User:ChildofMidnight


 * User:J Readings
 * User:Karbinski


 * User:KD Tries Again (already posted here)


 * User:Skomorokh


 * User:Snowded

Statement by TallNapoleon
I would like to request that my topic ban on editing Ayn Rand related articles be lifted. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done on Rand related articles, including major ongoing consolidation and cleanup being led by Skomorokh and  J Readings (please see Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk, which has become a central hub for these efforts). Currently, my limit to talk pages is severely limiting my ability to improve the project, as even in the most uncontroversial of cases I have to ask for other users to make the change, which is frustrating to me and, I am sure, them. Were the committee to lift this restriction, I would voluntarily place myself on 0RR (excepting, of course, vandalism removal), would avoid making any controversial edits without first gaining clear consensus via the Talk page, and would make sure to avoid involving myself in any edit wars. Thank you for your consideration. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I only listed myself because I don't believe this directly affects other users. I did post a link to this on Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk, and if the Committee likes I would be glad to notify all other members of the original ArbComm proceeding. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I originally posted this request at the suggestion of Skomorokh, who is I'm sure tired of having to make noncontroversial edits for me that I could largely make myself (I was originally planning to just ask for permission to tag articles).


 * The best place to see my involvement would be at the cross talk page, where I've started actively hunting through the "darker corners" of the Objectivism-related articles. There are a number of these articles, and they tend to be are extremely poorly written, of dubious notability, and POV. Many are in need of being merged or prodded.
 * In terms of the kinds of edits I would like to be able to do:


 * First, I would like to be able to add tags to articles. This would help tremendously with sorting.


 * Second, I would like to be able to PROD and AFD articles. As this has the potential to be controversial, I would discuss any such move on the cross-talk page before doing so.


 * Third, culling inappropriate material. There's lots of this stuff in the Objectivism section. We just recently finished a cull of a couple of different sources that turned out to be nonnotable and/or self-published (books by Ronald Merrill and James S. Valliant). There is also, for example, the quotes section on Romantic Realism, which despite being an article about a topic that extends far beyond Rand consists only of Rand's quotes (also IIRC quotes sections are discouraged).


 * Fourth, fixing blatantly obvious POV, for instance, as shown here. I had to ask other users to make that fix despite the fact that it was totally non-controversial--it's never Wiki's place to say that someone's arguments are "oversimplified". I also repeatedly notified the talk page about edits from our problem IP (see EdJohnston's update to WP:RANDARB), e.g. [Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_36#Changes here], which frankly I would have fixed on my own.


 * Fifth, I intend to make grammatical and format fixes, and be the grammar Nazi I was raised to be.


 * Sixth, in those cases where I do decide to be bold (which will likely be rare) it will be done on a section or subsection level, one piece at a time, without trying to rewrite whole gigantic articles, making it easier for other users to comment and edit changes and for consensus to develop.


 * Seventh, I intend to implement changes where consensus has been reached.
 * In terms of if other editors believe I overstep myself, I do not presume to tell ArbComm what decision they should make, or what sanctions they should place on me. I would suggest that the thing to do would be to either bring it back here or to go to an admin. Admins and ArbComm are really better suited to answer that kind of question than I am. If lots of my edits are being reverted, I think the thing to do would be to look at context. Are my edits based on consensus and it's just one person reverting, are my edits a case of being WP:BOLD in the face of no consensus (which to be honest is not the best idea on many of these articles) or are they directly against consensus? One is not my fault, one is potentially problematic, and one is definitely problematic. But I'm not planning on breaking my word on this. I intend to work for consensus, to make universally acceptable changes, and above all not to edit war, which is what my original sanction was for. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, I think Karbinski was pointing out the kind of edits I might make (or oppose) if I were not banned. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Karbinski. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick question to Vassyana--could the motion make clear whether or not I would be permitted to revert vandalism? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by KD Tries Again
I have been spending some time trying to help with the Rand-related articles recently, and I can confirm TallNapoleon's statement that there is an immense amount of editorial work to do. It would be very helpful to have him back on board.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Statement by Snowded
Edit warring has continued on the article, but with new editors. Articles of this nature have significant issues on questions of weight and verifiability and attempting to deal with them simply as behavioural issues of the editors involved is at best a short term solution. Current editors have carried out far more RRs that KD ever did. I have no objection to his request, he has always been careful to attempt a NPOV and to properly source material in a field where he is knowledgeable. --Snowded (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry only just spotted this. RR as in 3RR etc. Since the Arbcom ruling edit warring has continued.  My point was that there has been a lot worse behaviour than exhibited by TN since the ruling which has gone unpunished.  I was not referring to KD.  I am supporting TN being reinstated, although I think he should not be under any special restrictions.  --Snowded (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Karbinski
A couple examples of edits he may have made to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) here and here. --Karbinski (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As well an example of an edit to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - here - that he objected to being reverted. --Karbinski (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * I will be implementing the below motion and closing this thread shortly. AGK 13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * There is a question of what effect this will have on the editing environment. If you could please inform the current active contributors of your request, it would be appreciated. Opinions of current participants would be helpful. (That said, I would give fair warning to any who might comment that while reasonable objections and opinions are welcome that this is not an open forum to slag on other editors or complain about the "evils" of one side or another.) If you could, please better illustrate the kind of contributions you intend to enact. Could you link to a couple of examples of changes you would have made? Can you provide a few links to show your participation in recent discussions and additionally highlight a few broadly accepted changes that were implemented where you took part in the preceding discussion? It will also help our determination if you better clarify what sort of restriction you are looking to volunteer. Can the restriction be enforced, as per normal, by any uninvolved administrator? If a lot of your edits are being reverted, should this be considered against your limited mainspace participation? If a portion of your edits are seen as controversial or pushing the line, should that be considered against your participation? How would you expect violations of the restriction to be treated? Should your restriction revert to the mainspace prohibition? Should you be blocked? Should you be placed under another restriction? Any information and context that you can provide will help us make a determination. --Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * TallNapoleon seems to be have a good awareness of what boundaries he should respect. His request provides a suggestion for very strict editing conditions. No objections have been lodged, but some editors believe this would be of benefit and all indications appear to support that position. As such, I have proposed a motion below. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting blatant vandalism does not count for the purposes of our conduct rules, such as WP:3RR. I see no reason why this restriction should work differantly from the normal handling of the matter. --Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for Snowed: what do you mean by "RR" and why are you referring to KD? This amendment request is about TallNapoleon. And a question for Karbinski - I'm not sure what you are saying here. What are your diffs showing? Are you objecting to TallNapoleon's restrictions being lifted or are you saying he has been editing the articles instead of the talk pages? The explanation by TallNapoleon makes sense - the question to Snowded still stands. 19:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, Snowded. I think some restrictions are still needed, and have voted to support the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Motions
1) The topic ban imposed on (see WP:RANDARB) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles  for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.


 * Support:
 * As proposer, per my comments above. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support; TallNapoleon seems to have improved and is working well with editors on talk pages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy
A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Arbitration/Requests/Motions. NW ( Talk ) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request: Ayn Rand
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=578073042#Clarification_request:_Ayn_Rand Original discussion]


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  v/r - TP at 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision

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

Statement by TParis
I am filing a case about an administrator editing through protection on an article with Arbcom sanctions without consensus.

Timeline:
 * 17:50 8 October 2013 closes an RFC determining not to use qualifiers in front of the word "philosopher" in the lead.
 * 18:04 8 October 2013 Makes an edit request to make the change in the article per the RFC consensus
 * 18:27 8 October 2013 I fulfill the edit request to enact the consensus of the RFC
 * 19:08 removed the full protection per the closed RFC and enacted result


 * At this point, two edit wars break out:
 * 1) Whether or not to call Ayn Rand Russian-American or just American:
 * 2) Whether or not to say Ayn Rand founded Objectivism or if it's implied:
 * 00:51 11 October 2013 I fully-protected the article due to edit warring
 * 01:02 11 October 2013 I placed the article under a 1 revert rule and created an edit notice
 * 12:39 11 October 2013 makes an edit that again changes that section, this time specifying Russian-born American, and claiming to be carrying out the consensus of the RFC.  However, the RFC was not about Russian American or American.  It was about qualifiers before 'philosopher'.
 * 14:06 11 October 2013 I bring it to Jreferee's attention that this was an Arbitration action, and this article is under discretionary sanctions and urge him to self revert. I also suggest that he may not of known he was contributing to the edit war.
 * 16:07 11 October 2013 Jreferee declines to self revert asking to discuss it on the talk page instead.

As you can see on the talk page, Jreferee is again being asked to self revert. Unfortunately, Jreferee has continued the edit war, used admin tools to edit through full protection, and will not revert despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. According to this motion, upon being warned that this protection was due to Arbcom sanctions, Jreferee should've reverted himself.

--v/r - TP 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Using admin tools to violate discretionary sanctions is an issue for Arbcom, not AE Admins. AE Admins do not posses the full range of options to vet this issue.--v/r - TP 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jreferee has self-reverted, this can be closed.--v/r - TP 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please notify me if you do indeed make an statement concerning an action I've taken. At this point, as you've self-reverted, I believe that settles this matter.  Since I believe I followed policy to the letter, I have no idea what particular action you dispute (maybe the 1RR/week rule but that's not connected to this dispute that I know of).  So after your statement explaining yourself, if you do make one, this matter is wrapped up.--v/r - TP 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars can happen over days, not just minutes or hours. That no edit has been made in 5 hours could simply mean that an editor is currently asleep or at their place of employment and has not had a chance to see that their previous edit was reverted and revert again. This article just came off a full protection for edit warring, there is no reason to doubt that those same editors were not warring again. In addition, this article is under discretionary sanctions, which means that we treat edit wars much more harshly and strictly. The edit where you say I claimed that you consistently make these mistakes, you've taken out of context. It is in fact the motion linked on WP:AE, on the bullet starting "In March 2013, the Arbitration Committee..." and is described as the motion requiring that admins not undo Arbitration actions, in explicitly or in substance, without Arbcom's authority or community consensus. You had neither and your action undoes my full protection in substance because you've subverted it. The notification that this was an Arbitration action should've been evident when I said I'd bring it to WP:AE, but if that were not enough than you should've been aware that the article was under discretionary sanctions either by the edit notice I placed on the article 7 hours before your edit or the "This article and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions" warning on the talk page. Despite all of that, the article was fully protected. The giant red notice on top of the edit box told you it was fully protected. WP:PROTECT says, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." If you felt that my full protection was rash, you should've come to talk to me about it. Your entire defense is a non sequitur to that. If you don't understand that what you've done is against several policies as I've outlined in very clear detail, then perhaps this case needs to remain open.--v/r - TP 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Addressing Jreferee's concerns

Statement by Jreferee
I am working on my statement and will post it shortly. TParis's actions need reviewing and, in fairness, I would like to have my statement on record in this discussion before it is closed. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my actions, the closed AN/RFC post drew me to the Ayn Rand article. (I had never edited the Ayn Rand before). The RFC issue - "consensus was to exclude the use of qualifiers for the descriptor "philosopher" in the lead" had already been closed and addressed three days prior, with all page protection removed.
 * Regarding my actions

At the time of my edit, the page had received full page protection with a 1 revert rule. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary or on the article talk page. I edited the article as an editor implementing WP:LEAD.

The edit I made to the lead that has been cited as raising concern up to where I reverted my edit is my changing the lead from reading (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American article in the lead of the protected article. I revised the lead per WP:LEAD to read "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" text word "Russia" continuing to link to the Russian American article. I though that novelist, playwright, and screenwriter could be covered by the one word "writer" and the remainder of the lead used to characterize the forms of writing she did. I saw "Born in Russia" and "Russian-born" to mean one and the same. When I posted the "Russian-born American writer and philosopher" edit, I saw the change itself as factual, uncontroversial, and having clear consensus via the language in the lead itself. I used the language in the protected article to make the change. I did not think I was taking sides on any issue or of any issue of which I was aware and believed that my edit was consistent with the page protection. User:I JethroBT's subsequent post suggested that my edit may not have contributed towards encouraging consensus-building with interested editors. On reflection, I realized that my edit subsequently gave an appearance of unfairness that could have affected consensus-building with interested editors. I am sorry for giving an appearance of unfairness and will try to do work harder to prevent this.

The Russian American disagreement by four editors (two on each side) leading to the full page protection with a 1 revert rule was whether the hyphenated Russian-American should be removed from the article. Michipedian's notes that the first sentence of this article did say "Russian-American" for a very long time and someone removed it. Medeis added the Russian-American text back into the article 21:49, 8 October 2013 Ten minutes later, Yworo changed the article to remove the visible Russian-American text and move the Russian-American hidden link21:58, 8 October 2013, noting "here's a better place to link Russian American." Five edits made to the article and about two days later, Michipedian maintained Yworo's edit and added the linked text Russian-American.06:10, 10 October 2013 FreeKnowledgeCreator then removed the Russian-American text but was fine with "Born and educated in Russia" and its link to the Russian American article mentioned just a few sentences later in the lead paragraph. 06:40, 10 October 2013 Michipedian then re-added the Russian-American text.12:53, 10 October 2013 Three edits made to the article and eight hours later, Yworo removed the Russian-American text.20:32, 10 October 2013
 * Regarding TParis's actions

About five hours after the last of seven edits made over two days by four editors regarding the Russian-American issue, TParis change the article protection from unprotected to fully protected with a 1-revert rule so that it linked to Russian American and read "Born and educated in Russia" and "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" in the lead of the article. Other than citing Edit warring / Content dispute, TParis failed to provide any other details regarding the full page protection with a 1 revert rule, such as in the page protection edit summary, the edit notice, or on the article talk page. TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed.

The above seven edits over two days by four editors is what TParis subsequently characterized as an edit war regarding specific Russian-American verbiage for which fully protected the article with a 1-revert rule the only administrative recourse available. TParis has not commented on or provided any diffs of where he blocked or warned any involved editors before the full page protection with 1-revert rule. Of the 10,449 edits to the article, the four editors involved in the disagreement were Yworo, with 10 total edits to the article, and FreeKnowledgeCreator, with 5 total edits to the article (two favoring removing the hyphenated Russian-American text from the article) and Medeis with 12 total edits to the article, and Michipedian with 3 total edits to the article (two favored retaining the hyphenated Russian-American text in the article). There was no dispute over the article lead containing (1) "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter", (2) "Born and educated in Russia", and (3) the text word "Russia" linking to the Russian American.

After I made the edit to the article, TParis coercively indicated on my talk page that I needed to either revert my one edit regarding the specific Russian American verbiage ("Russian-born American writer and philosopher") or he would take the matter to WP:AE, and failed to provide enough information in which to make a decision. TParis posts at AN, linking to to claim that my one edit is evidence of consistently making questionable enforcement administrative actions. TParis claims above that this post informed me that his fully protecting the article with a 1-revert rule was somehow an Arbitration action.

This AN request resulted in me looking into the matter. I ask AN to determine at least: (1) whether these events and this AN request were the result of an overreaction by admin TParis to seven edits over two days by four editors new to the article looking to become interested editors in the article. (2) Whether TParis overreacted when he fully protected the article with a one revert rule to protect it against any rearrangement of the lead with regard to the "Russia" term. (3) Whether TParis protected the article in a state where the phrase Russian-American that had long been in the article was removed to favor recent content. (4) Whether TParis failed to sufficiently explain his full page protection/1 edit revert action to those looking to edit the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Query from NE Ent
Why here instead of WP:AE?

Statement by Thryduulf (re Ayn Rand)
Contrary to Risker's statement below, the about-to-pass resolution to the Manning case means that it is now fine for an admin to edit through protection if they disagree that the reason the protection applies to their actions has been explicitly given. This is independent of whether other users, including the protecting administrator, consider the explanation sufficient, relevant or understandable. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Proposed decision.

I know this seems absurd, but it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that case and I present it here to demonstrate that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is acceptable at all, but I am merely applying the rules (which I explicitly disagree with) you (the arbitrators collectively) have established in the Manning case.
 * Here you are drawing a frankly ridiculous distinction between:
 * making changes to content through protection that prohibits changes to content which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do); and
 * making changes to the title through protection that prohibits changes to the title which do not have consensus (which admins are warned not to do).
 * In the manning case you (personally) are endorsing the characterisation as simply "not ideal" any administrator ignoring protection when they do not agree that the reason protection was applied has been adequately explained. Whether the edit was requested by another user is irrelevant - the person performing the action takes responsibility for that action (as has been upheld many, many times by ArbCom). Tariq has never denied knowing the page was move protected, probably because trying to move a move protected page displays a prominent warning about the protection.
 * If it is acceptable for one administrator to perform an action in these circumstances but not acceptable for different administrator to perform an action in the same circumstances then we might as well not have any rules of admin conduct at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are still missing the point. Why is anybody changing the title of a move-protected article without consensus different to doing the same to a different part of the page when the content is protected? If the conduct here was totally unacceptable then the same conduct at the Manning article must also be totally unacceptable. If the conduct at the Manning article was only "not ideal" then the same conduct here must also be just "not ideal". Yet the arbcom is saying that they are different in severity. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RL0919
Although he has not made a statement here or otherwise commented on it, Jreferee has now self-reverted the edit, so this case may now be moot. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc
My reading is this: TParis' protection was done an arbitration enforcement action, whereas the protecting of Manning was not. So in that way by making the edit Jreferee was overturning an AE action, which is where the big problem comes from. Whereas changing the name of the Manning article was just through normal (not AE) protection. If BLP Spec Admin was mentioned in the log entry then it would have been a completely different story because that would have been reversing an AE action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse given I've commented. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The reason it's here instead of AE is that AE cannot remove an administrator's bit. Editing through protection is an extremely serious matter; it confounds the community's ability to formulate consensus when any administrator can impose their personal viewpoint into an article. The edit summary in particular concerns me ("Lead to this article from an AN request. Tweaked lead, revised redundant information, and focused more on important aspects highlighted by article section headings"), as it is clearly taking a position on the content of the matter, rather than the result of the RFC, which is what the report at WP:AN referred to.  Jreferee, please revert yourself.  Risker (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I'm not going to relitigate the Manning naming dispute case here, although there is a big difference between an admin responding to a move request through *move* protection and an admin making major content changes through *full* protection. Jreferee made major content changes to this article, editing through protection, which administrators are warned not to do without obtaining consensus; when they click "edit", the editing window is coloured instead of the usual white, and there is a notice above. The same is not true for changes to titles through move protection. So let's stick to the facts when discussing this situation: based on policy, why you think it is acceptable for Jreferee to rewrite an entire section of this article whilst it is under protection? Risker (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I'm going to ask that this section be closed within 24 hours, so if you don't see this response, I am sorry. I do not excuse anyone's behaviour on the other case, nor do I excuse Jreferee's behaviour here. That he considers himself acting as "an editor" when editing through protection for *any* reason is an error in judgment. When full protection is on an article, NOBODY should be editing it "as an editor". Only edits that have reached consensus on the talk page should be made until the protection is lifted (with very very limited exceptions), and then by a neutral administrator. No MOS changes, no date changes, no adding or removing categories, or other supposedly minor changes, all of which are issues that have led to full protection in the past. If there was agreement on the talk page for the changes that Jreferee made, then an uninvolved administrator could have applied those changes.  Administrators should know as soon as they see the pink screen that *any* edit (except for a clear BLP violation) needs to be discussed.  I might go for fixing an obvious typo, but I've also seen cases where the edit war is directly related to the "correct" spelling of the supposed typo, so caution should be taken there. Risker (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As Jreferee has self-reverted, I don't think we need to take this matter further. People make mistakes.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The conduct described in this request is subpar in several respects, but Jreferee has reverted his changes. I would strongly counsel him not to make the same mistake again (it is unlikely the committee would excuse a second offence), and would recommend the rest of the article's editors return to business as usual. AGK  [•] 20:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No action required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.