Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Izno (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 20 February 2022 (→‎Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion: don't see a need to comment here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[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: Non-ARBPIA Western Asia disruption none none 6 February 2022
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles none (orig. case) 19 February 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: Non-ARBPIA Western Asia disruption

Initiated by El C at 15:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Non-ARBPIA Near East disruption

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 El C

I hate this template so much! Erm, as you may or may not know, there has been a resurgence in disruption pertaining to Turkey and Turkic peoples (especially Turkish people) lately, at times with the Armenian genocide as its nexus, other times with a less modern historical focus (Ottoman Empire and earlier), especially vis-à-vis Iranian peoples (esp. Persians).

There are 4 threads related to these topics at WP:ANI right now (permalinks: #Abrvagl, #Arvinahmadi1994, #37.111.218.179, #WP:NOTHERE_by_Mountain_gora), which is on the high end of normal. At a (2nd) glance, these all appear to be disparate individuals and related sub/topics.

Anyway, the WP:KURDS, WP:AA2, and to a lesser extent WP:ARBIRP DSs, provide a lot of overlapping coverage (coverage which isn't the easiest to navigate, but it's aiight), except when they don't. Maybe it's time for some creative stuff? And things? I dunno. Thanks for indulging me! El_C 15:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, WP:BALKANS redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, so looks like I win this round!
Barkeep49, I think #37.111.218.179 would not be covered ,possibly more. Sorry, writing in haste. El_C 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, only lowercase wp:balkans, I knew that. My memeory is so bad and now I'm sad. El_C 16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, briefly, to reduce the stupid quotient: the Ottoman-Euro stuff is probably covered, but I have doubts whether the Ottoman-Iranian (and beyond) would be. So, topics such as Turco-Persian wars, Ottoman–Safavid relations and so on. El_C 19:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning the coherence of some of the above, so I'll put it another way. Two likely things would happen to a Western Asian disruptive account that isn't blatant enough for a simple WP:DE-block. Either their disruption will become prolific enough that they'll get a siteban or equivalent at AN/ANI (which is often hard to come by due to lack of familiarity with the subject matter by the average reviewer of these noticeboards). Or, eventually, they'll run afoul of the existing DSs. Sometime, they become productive contributors, lest we forget that does happen, though unfortunately not as often.

Basically, I'm concerned with the attrition faced by our veteran contributors who regularly edit these topics. Honestly, I don't really know what to do. I originally just wanted a better alert system that accounted/connected these to the other non-ARBPIA Western Asian DSs, but I'm not sure that it can be done under the current system without having a blanket Western Asia of all/most eras DS, which doesn't seem too feasible (or desirable).

The point is that, to me, it feels like the bleed in this area has become near constant. So now I put it out there, FWIW. El_C 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned and Barkeep49: yeah, sorry guys, it might have made more sense in my head. But as I was saying, it just feels like this disruptive Turkish-Iranian nexus has been getting worse, from history to naming conventions and beyond. Both countries have a combined population that's less than Brazil's, or 100 mil less than Indonesia, and I can't even remember the last time I've seen disputes involving those countries at ANI (the entire region: ARBPIA, AA2, KURDS, ARBIRP).
But in hindsight, I don't know what I was expecting. Slip Turkey into an existing DS somehow? But which one and how to have it make sense, that I don't have an answer to. Thanks again. El_C 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: thanks, that's fair. But, no, no GS for me! It took me three tries to get WP:GS/IRANPOL off the ground, now superseded by WP:ARBIRP, so if it comes down to it, I'm just gonna try the second thing. ;) El_C 21:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

Wouldn't Turkey and the Ottoman Empire fall under Eastern Europe and the Balkans? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:15, 6 February 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.

Non-ARBPIA Near East disruption: Clerk notes

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

Non-ARBPIA Near East disruption: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • El C - I will read through those threads you've linked but for this time-starved arb's benefit can you provide a few diffs that show disruption that isn't covered by current DS? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the diffs provided the only one that arguably is not covered by existing DS is this one and I'm just not seeing enough there to justify any kind of DS change. There is always going to be some degree of persistent low level conflict on Wikipedia and we have processes for dealing with those. DS is for when those processes can't or don't work. I will continue to watch this, and if there are others who have comments I would like to hear them as the community feedback was important (despite my not returning to post to it) at the recent AA/IPA discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C I think if disruption in Turkey remains bad and difficult to solve that you could certainly do a case request for us to consider the topic area / form new DS. Or you could ask the community to create a GS in the area (though as we've seen this does currently limit the ability to use AE). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is always a difficult area to cover, and I appreciate that we have quite a few different DS regimes for a roughly defined geographic area "West Asia" - but I'm not sure I'm seeing a solution at present. I'd not be happy to combine the regimes, because the are based on different conflicts and if one does resolve, I'd like to be able to consider removing it - similarly I don't like the idea of casting too wide a net and catching issues that the community should be dealing with normally. I will read and think, think and read - but I would certainly appreciate more thoughts from the community. WormTT(talk) 13:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Shrike at 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 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 Shrike

First of all, I don't seek sanctions for anyone so it's not an appeal on the recent AE case[2] but rather a clarification. Here are my questions:

  1. Does 1RR violation occur? In this case, the revert was of two different and not connected parts of articles Dennis Brown has said [3] to enforce the decision the reverts should be somehow connected did his interoperation correct?
  2. It's costumery that if the violation occurred user is asked to self-revert in this case but if not possible to self-revert? Does the user get a free pass?

@Dennis Brown: Thank you for your answer, But here removal was of recent material so it has nothing to do with age the user removed twice the name of the countries the first removal was edit the second is a revert Shrike (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

In the case given, one revert was obvious, the other was removing some unrelated material in a different part of the article. 1RR doesn't mean you can do normal editing, which can be adding or removing material. As I said in AE (and I will expand on), my understanding is there needs to be some kind of link, although not directly.

1. Reverting something recent an editor just added, then reverting something new someone else added? That's two reverts, a problem.
2. Reverting the same material twice, obviously.
3. If the two edits revert (add or take away) the same type of material, say changing "Israel" to "Palestine" in two different places, then yes, 1RR is breached.

There are others, those are just the most obvious. But if you have reverted once in 24 hours, saying that NO material may be removed or changed would essentially mean that once you have reverted something, you can't edit for 24 hours at the risk of making minor changes that someone will see as "reverting material added previously". I don't think 1RR is meant to be overarching and onerous as to prevent the normal editing of articles. It's only meant to prevent disruption. How old does material need to be before removing it isn't really a "revert"? I don't have a number, but I can tell when it is soon enough to count under 1RR, and not every removal of prose is a "revert".

As to "get a pass", that doesn't really apply here, and that isn't so much a matter of the policy as the judgement of the admin enforcing Arbitration areas. Admin are given great latitude in handling these cases, within the boundaries of WP:ADMINACCT. El C closed it, and I didn't see his close as a "pass". The solution to every problem isn't always the ban hammer anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shrike, we aren't here to relitigate the case, which is beyond the scope here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Shrike, to reiterate what I said at AE, whether this (replacing something with something else vs removing that thing outright) was a violation may well end up being subject to admin interpretation where one's mileage may vary. As mentioned, I wouldn't have counted this as a violation, though it technically may be one. A different admin might see it different.

As I noted to Dennis Brown [refactor], my understanding is that 1RR follows the mechanic of 3RR: whether involving the same or different material. But I [also added how I] can understand wanting to omit that to lessen the gotcha/stumble factor somewhat.

Shrike, about the "free pass": in my view, even if self-reverting would no longer be possible, it's still advisable to raise the matter with the user all the same (XYT). The goal is to foster best practices through good faith dialogue, not have a tit-for-tat of... I dunno that time their side got a free pass but this time ours didn't, and so on. El_C 19:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, well, I'd refer to commons sense, under which repeat and frequent offenders are more likely to receive sanctions than they are further allowances. In those instances, I'd therefore view the expectation for the reporting user to engage with the reported user (self-rv'esque discussion) to likewise diminish. In any case, I don't know that there's a magic formula to balance out the pitfalls of either excess admin discretion with that of a too rigid ruleset, as affecting both involved editors and uninvolved admins alike. El_C 09:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I agree with El_C that "whether involving the same or different material" applies to 1RR. The problem is more that "revert" is not itself defined precisely, and the definition as such does not always match the motivation of slowing down edit wars.

It should be expected at AE that editors are given the chance to self-revert 1RR violations before being reported. However, editors should not be able to use this right as a way to make repeated risk-free reverts, only self-reverting when asked to. Everyone should have an allowance for honest mistakes, but only a limited allowance.

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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I do not see a need for clarification here from ArbCom at this time. Neither of the two questions asked appear to fit into the scope of ARCA (you are not seeking a modification and the clarifications sought do not derive from a direct statement or decision of ArbCom). They probably would have been suitable for the enacting administrator's talk page, though both that admin and another who was part of the consensus in the AE discussion of interest have both answered. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1072982621"