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 Barkeep49 (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 22 August 2022 (→‎Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion: an answer to the last ? from Johnpacklambert). 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
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Eastern Europe none (orig. case) 24 July 2022
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 6 August 2022
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 22 August 2022

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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
127128

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:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

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: Palestine-Israel articles 4

Initiated by Xaosflux at 16:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 4 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

This is really to get clarification of this in general, so we can provide any appropriate guidance to admins - not a critique on any specific admin's action. — xaosflux Talk 16:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

In 2021 the related Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion was passed, and replacing the specific restrictions on users with selection of the Extendedconfirmed user group as requirement. We have had some recent discussion at WP:PERM if this includes any user that any administrator also decides to add to that user group, even if they do not meet the normal requirements, and even if for the explicit purpose of bypassing this remedy. There are sometimes non-remedy reasons to give someone EC early (not related to WP:LEGITSOCKs which I don't think anyone is confused about), when I give someone EC early for some non-remedy reason I normally warn them to purposefully avoid articles under this remedy until they would naturally qualify. So in summary, may admins allow any editor to bypass this remedy by adding them to this user group?

Statement by Selfstudier

The difficulty in the particular case giving rise to this ARCA was compounded by a series of events. A non ecp editor created an AI article for a breaking news event with a clearly POV title and then !voted to support that title in an RM designed to remedy the POV issue. When their non ecp comments in that still open RM were struck as is usual, it transpired that the otherwise still unqualified editor had been granted perms -> kerfuffle. This could possibly have all have been avoided were it possible to auto undo AI article creation by non ecp editors.

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 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My initial thoughts are that the wording says "extended-confirmed editors", and does not indicate how or why the user has reached this status. This permission, unlike autoconfirmed, can be removed for abuse. As you say, administrators will often grant ECP for users that do not meet the automatically-granting criteria, so one can reasonably make the assumption that unless the admin in question has gone rouge and is promoting the editor for non-benign reasons, the user in question can be assumed to have it for a valid or useful purpose. If that turns out not to be the case, then the user can have the permission removed from their account.
    In other words, my initial reaction is that I see no issue with an admin granting ECP, full stop, provided it is for a legitimate or otherwise reasonable purpose. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial thought is we explicitly decided to link these remedies to ECP, so if ECP changes this would change with it. Or, as in this case, there might be other reasons for ECP and it's OK for an editor to edit in these areas if they have the permission. So if an editor gets the right they can edit the area even if they normally wouldn't qualify. That said I'd be very skeptical of someone requesting the right to edit these areas. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. This is linked to ECP for better or worse, and incidents of abuse will have to be dealt with on their own. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues above. Context: This change (from "500 edits and 30 days" to "is extended confirmed") was, at least to me, a welcome side effect of the motion we passed. Before the change, users who had gamed EC status could have their EC status revoked but they would still theoretically be allowed to edit PIA4 pages if unprotected. And users who were granted EC status for other reasons would have to be told that they can't edit these pages that they can technically edit. Easier to just tie the social prohibition to the technical access. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there have been no comments since this one from nine days ago, I will instruct the clerks to close this ARCA request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1106020490"