Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 147: Line 147:


=== Wikicology: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
=== Wikicology: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*As an individual administrator action, I will temporarily restore T Cells' talk page access; he can if necessary ask for comments to be copied over from there. I'll reset the TPA block after the village pump discussion has concluded. I don't think further ArbCom action is necessary at this time. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 19:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
*
*

Revision as of 19:50, 28 August 2022

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Eastern Europe none (orig. case) 24 July 2022
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 28 August 2022
Amendment request: Wikicology none (orig. case) 28 August 2022

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

Initiated by Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Eastern Europe arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Mhawk10

The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?

Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of WP:EEWP:ARBEE?

Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inquiry for a broader understanding, with the giving alerts, talk pages notices, etc. in mind. I was a bit surprised when I didn't see a talk page notice on the Poisoning of Alexei Navalny page even though there is one on the Alexei Navalny page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the facts at this AN thread, I think that some users (like me) would benefit from knowing whether the topic of Crimean Tatars within the Soviet Union (for example) is within the scope of WP:EEWP:ARBEE. I don't think it's entirely abstract at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
altered WP:EE links to WP:ARBEE Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

How about the Soviet satellite state of East Germany? Additional illustration - Greece and the European part of Turkey. This might be confusing to the young (born in 2000 +) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

If my memory serves me correctly? The countries in Europe that were under Soviet influence or control, were described as "Eastern European countries", as being behind the "Iron Curtain". The East (Communist) vs West (Democracy), etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Is there an actual issue at the moment where this would clarification would have an impact or is it an inquiry for a broader understanding (such as editors who might need an alert, talk pages where the notice would appear, etc)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't see a one size fits all answer here and the AN thread linked as a reason why an answer is needed doesn't strike me as a particularly great place to weigh in either. The best I can offer is that at least some parts of Russian topics will fall with-in the scope of EE. Do all parts? That's what I'm not ready to say today, as maybe yes, maybe no. I would need more input from the community than this ARCA has achieved for me to say. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of the original disputes that led to this particular discretionary sanctions regime is that the disputes were more along ethnic lines within certain parts of Europe. The various situations presented in the original request for clarification all seem to be edge cases, and would be probably best dealt with on the individual merits of a known conflict or dispute as it arises; the particulars of geographical location would be but one factor in determining whether this discretionary sanctions regime applies. For example, ethnic disputes involving Kazakhstan would probably be lumped under "Central Asia" and not "Eastern Europe (let's ignore for a moment what does and doesn't have a DS regime presently). In contrast, my instinct would be to lump anything Russia-related under Eastern Europe given the likely cultural basis for a dispute. But, I should emphasize again that I don't see a good one-size-fits-all answer here. Maxim(talk) 17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crimea is in Eastern Europe, so editing conflicts related to that region (and to go along with Maxim's line of reasoning, ethnic-related conflicts in particular) would fall under the Eastern Europe DS regime. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a generational/cultural thing requiring memories pre-dating the fall of the wall (1989)? Eastern Europe is the former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still thinking this over but the response here suggests that a clarification by motion (instead of a routine archiving of this ARCA) would be appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

Arbitrators have clarified. firefly ( t · c ) 09:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Statement by Johnpacklambert

My topic ban says I am not allowed to participate in deletion discussion or anything like unto it. The whole discussion in imposing it was about articles. I am wondering if it extends to Categories for discussion, especially such discussions that are only speaking about renaming an existing category, and not at all trying to get a category deleted. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • So even asking for clarification of a ban is grounds to consider a siteban on me. That seems extreme. I am trying to go through the proper process and gain better understanding of the matter, and that in and of itself is treated as grounds to support a siteban. This seems harsh. I was trying to get better understanding and go through the proper channels. Treating doing this as grounds to consider even harsher penalties seems very extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording below suggests that some think my very asking about this should result in a ban or block. Such negative reactions to legitimate questions, seem uncalled for. I asked this because another editor that I was speaking of suggested that I should ask about this part of the matter. It is clear that I am not the only person who did not realize that "deletion discussions, broadly construed" would extend to all XfD. The tone that "you asked this question, we should now siteban you", makes it feel like the view is I deserve punishment if I do anything to try to get clarify. It is a very frustrating situation to be in. To not have honest inquires treated as honest. It is the key to avoiding things that will be problematic to ask beforehand, yet when asking itself is treated as something deserving punishment, it is a very frustrating point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that topic bans can be arbitrarily expnaded just because I make comments that someone does not like, without them violating any actual rules of behavior in Wikipedia also seems arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I may have spoken too broadly in the sports notability discussions. I have revised my comments to address the particular issues they were responding to directly. I am sorry for speaking too broadly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that notability is about deletion is broadly not what it is supposed to be. It is mainly about guiding the underlying creation of articles. I have revised my wording to focus on the guidelines themselves. The ban in no way mentioned sports at all, and to put it in place afterward based on things that were not against any Wikipedia policies or guidelines just seems arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think calling statements of opposition to changing the guidelines for sports notability "battlefield conduct" is not justified. There was an open proposal to change a guideline. I expressed opposition to changing the guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very fact my asking a question is used to propose a huge increase in the scope of the ban makes me feel like I am being punished for trying to get clarification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that some of the answers I go earlier were conflicting. For one thing, a statement was that if the discussion at hand could lead to deleting an article, I should steer clear of it, but if it could not, I could participate. That suggestion is one reason to try and get more clarity. I see that deletion of things other than articles is intended to be covered, but that was not entirely clear before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is posting notice on my talk page that I found 2 articles that have the exact same subject, just say a name that was spelled in a minor way differently OK. Or is doing that in violation of the Topic ban as well. I figure I might as well clear up any possible grey area to avoid issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor who I trusted suggested that I seek more clarity on this matter. Also, people suggested that the operational question was whether the discussion at hand could result in a deletion. Most CfDs do not have any change of resulting in a deletion. I was at least thinking I could get more clarity. I do not like how I am attacked for seeking clarity. I am an honest, sincere person. I have tried to read and internalize everything that is said. However it was not clear to me if the statement of one person actually represented a consensus view. Maybe I should trust less in other editors, but when they suggest I should at least try to get clarification, I did not realize that seeking clarification would lead to so much negative reaction to my even trying to do it. I am sorry for not fully understanding this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

Your bringing this to WP:ARCA, will not result in a block or ban, JPL. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

I would like the arbs to consider expanding Johnpacklambert's topic ban to include notability, broadly contrued. Part of the reason that he was topic banned was due to distruption around the notability of atheletes and he is now at WT:Notability (sports) continuing the same sort of behavior. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: It has nothing to do with like or dislike. I have no feelings on the subject. What I am pointing out is that you have decided to double down on the area of dispute that you were partly topic banned from rather than exiting the area entirely. Further, you continue your battlefield conduct in that same topic area area and seem to continue to focus on pushing your beliefs around the deletion of a class of article through the avenues open to you [1]. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Note that Seraphimblade has closed the Arbitration Enforcement request with the outcome Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban and blocked JPL accordingly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

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

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The remedy bans you from participating in "deletion discussions, broadly construed". Deletion discussions at a minimum include the six usual XfD venues, that is AfD, MfD, CfD, RfD, TfD, and FfD. The "broadly construed" qualifier would arguably cover discussions outside those venues that relate to deleting something. As much has been explained in the arbitration enforcement request, and frankly none of this should be a mystery for someone who's been around since 2006. While I'm not leaning at this moment to proposing such a measure, I do wonder whether it would be easier for everyone involved to have a site ban imposed, as there shouldn't be so much difficulty in understanding what is permitted and what is not permitted under such a sanction. Maxim(talk) 13:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Maxim, this is fairly clear-cut. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, my concurrence above only deals with the scope of the remedy involved; I am not at this point in time commenting on further sanctions. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note the CfD question was asked and answered during the proposed decision. Johnpacklambert you asked quite a few questions there and I'd encourage you to go back and look at those before filing future ARCAs. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnpacklambert: can you give me a diff of where you got conflicting advice about CfDs? I linked to a direct answer to you which is the one I would have given. Answering questions you have about your topic ban is reasonable but if you're not going to refer to answers you get before asking the same question again, it becomes less reasonable. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnpacklambert has been blocked but to answer his question Is posting notice on my talk page that I found 2 articles that have the exact same subject, just say a name that was spelled in a minor way differently OK. Or is doing that in violation of the Topic ban as well. if the topic ban would prevent him from doing it directly, it's my opinion that trying to get someone else to do it, like by posting on the user talk, is against broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with @Barkeep49. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deletion discussions, broadly construed" → any method listed under {{Deletion debates}}, and includes proxying. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, when the current block expires, I suggest you take "broadly construed" very seriously. If editing here as as important to you as you say it is, you need to acknowledge that an arbcom-imposed topic ban is the absolute last level of sanction below a full site ban, and if you do not respect the topic ban and stop testing the edges of it, a full ban is the likely result. --Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 BDD (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Wikicology

Initiated by Jayen466 at 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikicology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology&oldid=720092831#Wikicology_site-banned


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Temporary lifting of site-ban to allow T-Cells (formerly known as Wikicology) to participate in Village Pump discussions concerning his person


Statement by Jayen466

T_Cells' site-ban has come up in the context of his receiving WMF grant money to coordinate the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest. If he is being discussed here then he should, as a basic principle of courtesy, be allowed to comment in that discussion, if he wishes to do so.

Statement by T_Cells

Statement by Indy beetle

With all due respect to Jayen466, I don't think this is really necessary. The case of Wikicology/T Cells is simply being used as an example for a broader phenomenon, and that discussion is more geared towards WMF process, not the particulars of Wikicology's behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Wikicology: Clerk notes

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

Wikicology: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As an individual administrator action, I will temporarily restore T Cells' talk page access; he can if necessary ask for comments to be copied over from there. I'll reset the TPA block after the village pump discussion has concluded. I don't think further ArbCom action is necessary at this time. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1107211975"