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 Primefac (talk | contribs) at 13:18, 4 November 2022 (→‎Appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion: thoughts). 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 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/1/0
[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: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 2 October 2022
Amendment request: Iranian politics none (orig. case) 12 October 2022
Clarification request: Appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions none none 2 November 2022
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

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: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 15:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 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

  • [diff of notification Username]
  • [diff of notification Username]

Statement by Interstellarity

The Watergate scandal article seems to be covered for the AP2 sanction, but it was placed before the date was changed from 1932 to 1992. I am hoping that someone can clarify if the sanction should be removed.

Statement by Thryduulf (AP2)

Are the sanctions still required? The talk page is extremely quiet and a glance at the article history shows nothing that the pending changes isn't handling and might even be handled better by standard semi protection. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

I think a lot of the issue here is some poorly-worded templates. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Ds § Finally handling "legacy topic areas". Arbs, would anything I've proposed there require ArbCom sign-off to implement? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Barkeep49: We could easily keep track of which topic areas have active page restrictions by tweaking the template to categorize restrictions by topic area. That would leave a few edge cases where a talk page is marked with a template other than {{ds/talk notice}}, but that's not something that should be happening in the first place, so good to clean up in either case, and is a one-time up-front cost. There'd also be the matter of checking for active sanctions against editors in each area, but again, minimal cost, and once you've assessed that once, it'll be very easy to keep track of going forward.
    But in the alternative, that part of my proposal is easily severable from the rest. Just keep all the repealed topic areas under the current single heading on {{ds/topics/doc}}, but append a note to the effect of In most cases, sanctions and restrictions in rescinded areas remain in effect, and sanctions and restrictions in superseded cases have been transferred to the newer authorization; see the relevant motions in the cases linked below for more information. Or don't do that at all and ignore that sub-proposal entirely, since the editnotices and talknotices will explain, and that's the main thing that matters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, after looking through case history and WP:AELOG, the legacy/obsolete breakdown for fully-rescinded DS regimes would appear to be:

  • Page restrictions in effect:
  • Editor sanctions still in effect, but no page restrictions:
    • Ancient Egyptian race controversy: 1 TBAN of a now-inactive editor. (An indef is also logged, but I don't think that counts?)
    • Austrian economics: 1 TBAN of an active editor
    • Ayn Rand: 1 TBAN of a now-inactive editor
    • Sexology as applies to trans issues:[a] 1 0RR of a banned user's sock; 1 TBAN of a since-banned user. There's also one sanction from 2022; not sure if that's a clerical error or if there's a special circumstance.
    • Transcendental meditation: 1 behavioral restriction against a now-inactive editor.
  • Obsolete:
    • ... because all sanctions/restrictions have been moved to other cases:
      • GamerGate → Gender and sexuality
      • GGTF → Gender and sexuality
    • ... because all sanctions/restrictions have expired or been lifted:
      • Gibraltar
      • Landmark Worldwide
      • Scientology (as best I can tell? the logging is a bit of a mess)
      • Senkaku Islands
      • Tea Party movement
      • Waldorf education
    • ... because no sanctions/restrictions were ever imposed:
      • Cold fusion 2[b]
      • Crosswiki issues
      • Homeopathy[b]
      • Monty Hall problem
      • Sexology as applies to paraphilias
      • Tree shaping

Notes

  1. ^ a b Area where all remaining sanctions could be transferred to an active set of DS, but where the motion rescinding the case did not do so automatically.
  2. ^ a b Seems everyone just used Pseudoscience DS?

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:52, 8 October 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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Existing sanctions placed before the date change remain in effect. See the motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: this is anexample of why I support the proposed change in DSREFORM to allow any admin to remove page restrictions after a year. But I will note that as the sanctioning admin is no longer an administrator, you would be free to modify it if you wish under current DS rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) with the above, but agreed (though technically this is a page restriction, not a sanction, but the motion still keeps it in force). Primefac (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Barkeep in full. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin, your suggestions there sound great. Under the current rules they require arbcom approval. (The current WP:DS2022 process seeks to allow clerks to authorize changes after consulting the committee, rather than requiring the committee itself to authorize changes.) Consider this note my vote of approval and if no arb objects I think you should consider this ARCA to be approval. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand I can see the wisdom of what @Tamzin proposes especially with Muhammed image's upcoming sunsest. On the other hand, it creates more for future clean-up as arbcom would have to figure out if the sanction still exists anywhere, especially given that repealing page protections is going to get easier in the upcoming DS reform. I am not sure that this change offers enough benefit to justify the increased bureaucracy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a clear and significant upgrade in documentation versus a frankly pretty small amount of cleanup burden. It'll take much more time for Tamzin to code up the template than it'll take the clerks to check periodically whether something is done (and that is really not urgent). As I've discussed with you, better templates and documentation is my #1 goal with DS, and this is an example of why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing you feel a lot more strongly about this than I do and that should perhaps carry the day but I think this creates work now and in the future. Like if this had been in place, doing the AMPOL date change would have been a ton more work as existing sanctions get sorted into whether it's still applicable or needed to shift to the legacy. We've gone 20+ months with this change before anyone brought it up and have done loads of these in the past. You say that this is better template and documentation and I say "sure but is it worth the cost of doing it?" to which I remain very unsure despite what you and Tamzin say here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a lot of backlogs on Wikipedia that are not urgent and are done on an as-available basis. Recategorizing old AP2 page restrictions seems like it falls in that category. It's important to me because there are a lot of little unfriendly things in our DS documentation that in combination make it really hard for editors to understand and participate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am suggesting that the prospect of that work might mean that the change never happens at all. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it'll happen. Even if it doesn't, I think we should authorize the work to happen, so it can happen over time if someone wishes to do so, rather than ask us again at another ARCA. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barkeep's answer to the question is completely accurate. I appreciate there is a possibility that the page restriction is not the right one though. WormTT(talk) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with L235 regarding the suggested changes and their merits, and Barkeep's original comment and followup to Thryduulf. I also think this matter can be closed, seeing as the original question was answered a month ago. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Iranian politics

Initiated by Stefka Bulgaria at 09:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Iranian politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics § Stefka Bulgaria topic-banned
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Appeal of topic ban

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria

I'm not familiar with these appeals; sorry if I didn't fill this correctly. It's been a year since I was topic-banned from editing articles relating to Iranian politics. My edits in other areas (since I was topic-banned) have been constructive, and I've had a good chance to reflect and learn from the issues I had with other editors back then. With everything that's been happening in Iran these last weeks, I think I could be a useful contributor in this area once again. Also, editors I had issues prior to being topic-banned have mostly been topic-banned themselves or blocked for socking, so I don't believe that I would have problems working collaboratively in this area again. Anyways, thank you for your consideration.

Addressing comments below, last year's experience had an effect on my desire to participate in other talk/pages as a whole (and it still does); which is why I've been mainly reviewing new pages. I'm aware that if I were allowed to participate in Iranian-politics again, a misstep of any kind on my behalf would likely lead to me being indef'ed from this area. This request is for making occasional corrections in this area; nothing more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (Iranian politics)

They were topic banned because they engaged in bludgeoning, stonewalling, and degrading of discussions. and filed verbose RfCs in an attempt to railroad preferred changes. They've done none of that since the topic ban was imposed, but they've done almost nothing else in talk spaces either. Since the case closed they've only made 9 edits to the talk: namespace that were not just page moves or wikiproject tagging (and one of them was a copyedit to their own comment) and 0 edits to the Wikipedia talk:, Template talk:, Category talk: and File talk: namespaces. Almost all their edits in user talk: have been speedy deletion notices (most of their work has been new page patrolling). Their four edits to Draft talk: came today and all are related to moving their personal sandbox to draftspace. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HistoryofIran

Considering the majority of Stefka Bulgaria's edits were in this topic, I don't find it surprising that their editing activity has decreased. It's hard to find another niche. The Iranian Politics area is a cesspool which suffers from POV editing (including dirty tactics such as WP:GAMING), and a lack of monitoring admins (I don't blame them), which makes it a lot more difficult to adhere to our guidelines (which is mainly why I left that area). While Stefka Bulgaria's hands may not be completely clean (then again, whose are?), I think they did a lot more good in that area than many others, and thus deserves another chance. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:07, 27 October 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.

Iranian politics: Clerk notes

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

Iranian politics: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I find myself somewhat on the fence. On the one hand, the issues that led to the levied sanctions have not been repeated in other venues. On the other hand, as Thryduulf mentions, there have not really been that many edits or "opportunities" (for lack of a better word) for that behaviour to show. It makes me think of an unsuccessful RfA candidate who then spends the next twelve months carefully avoiding anything that could be seen as controversial in an attempt at a second successful bid for adminship. In the interest of good faith, I do not necessarily think this is what happened; when an editor goes from averaging about 2000 edits per year to less than a tenth of that it does demonstrate that the topic area in question certainly was their primary focus, and they might not have found a new niche. I would like to hear from other editors, though. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself largely agreeing with Primefac that we don't know if behavior has improved. I have noticed in several noticeboard discussions there still doesn't appear to be much admin work in this topic and so I worry if misbehavior were to happen again it would not be addressed. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I am a decline here. Please demonstrate good work in the talk space in other areas and I expect an appeal would be successful. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Izno here. Maxim(talk) 12:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also inclined to decline. I think you have some good feedback here, and the signs are encouraging for your next appeal if you follow it. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions

Initiated by ToBeFree at 20:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
WP:AC/DS

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

Enforcing administrators:

Affected users:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by ToBeFree

Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Horn_of_Africa currently contains two entries saying "with an appeal possible in six months". There may be other, similar restrictions elsewhere; I didn't search for more. I'd like to know if such restrictions on appeals are compatible with the WP:AC/DS procedures. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been a single entry, I'd have asked the administrator who has placed it; I was looking at multiple entries and wanted to avoid starting multiple individual discussions with possibly varying results. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for more from 2022 alone and feel confirmed in my decision to raise this centrally. I'm adding two parties for [1] and [2]. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

I absolutely can not recollect the case, but reading the AE discussion I closed I see that the proposal was indeed "TB which can be appealed in 6 months". I guess what I meant was that the TB is best appealed after 6 months and has very little chances to lead to a successful appeal before that, but I see indeed that this is not what I logged. My apologies.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I please also notice that TBF did not attempt to discuss the issue with me prior to filing this request. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

Apologies. Of course we shouldn't deny the right of appeal at any time. I thought I'd seen this before and hadn't considered the implications. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

Statement by RegentsPark

Agreed that an appeal can be filed immediately so, yes, mea culpa. In the particular case pointed to above, there was some discussion among the commenting admins about a timed t-ban, and that's part of the reason why the 6 months showed up there but I should have timed it to "exactly six months" to make it appealable. The current appeal system, imo, is a good one and I have no problems with it. Also, thanks to ToBeFree for bringing this up because, although on first glance this appears to be merely procedural, it is actually important for ensuring that our messaging be clear and not confusing. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shirshore

Statement by Onengsevia

Statement by Stix1776

Statement by Bookku

Took note of this helpful discussion. After overwhelming discussions small time gap can be helpful break for users too for study and reflection about what all went wrong. Bookku (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

My 2c: appeals by sanctioned editors fall essentially into two categories:

  1. "This sanction is unjustified"
  2. "This sanction may have been justified when placed but is no longer needed"

No administrator/venue should be able to place a limit of when the first kind of appeal can be placed since that would remove an essential check on their authority. However, it should be permissible for the sanction notice to specify when the second kind of appeal can be placed (as long as the time period is reasonable) both to prevent too-early appeals that are almost certain to be rejected and as a carrot to improve conduct.

As an example of what I mean, see this DS I had placed with a note appended that said, I have kept the topic area of the ban narrow in the hope that you can learn to edit productively in other areas and even ask for this ban to be rescinded say 3 months from now. I hope that the committee will not disallow that kind of "limit/encouragement" even while clarifying that I couldn't have (hypothetically) prohibited the editor from appealing the sanction to AN/AE/ARCA at any point they wished. Abecedare (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I agree with my colleagues above and below that individual admins obviously cannot obviate all rights of appeal, and that's wording we need to be careful about. However, if memory serves, admins at AE sometimes decline an appeal and simultaneously prohibit AE appeals for a given period of time. And this actually makes sense to me, because it's not about obviating the right of appeal, but rather saying "any appeal at this venue will be unsuccessful for this period of time". Sometimes want to avoid repeated appeals, and the sanctioned user would always have the option of coming to ARCA (I'm assuming this is non-controversial; if diffs are needed, I can dig them up later). It seems logical to say that individual admins may also state that they will not personally consider appeals for a given period, with the user still having the option of appealing to AE, AN, or ARCA. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Harry

I came to make largely the same observation as Abecedare. I assume that these time limits on "appeals" were intended to mean that the sanction can be reviewed after that length of time, which is how I've used them in the past. They should not be taken, and I doubt the sanctioning admins intended them to be taken, as preventing the first kind of appeal, which asks other admins/the community/ArbCom to review the sanction because the sanctioned editor feels it is unjust. I would suggest using the term "review" or coming up with another ArbCom/WP policy neologism to distinguish appeals on the grounds that a sanction is no longer necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 3 November 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.

Appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

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

Appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'd love to understand the intent of Ymblanter and Doug Weller. If the intent is to ban all appeals I would say that is outside of DS power - at minimum they could appeal to us at ARCA. If the intent is "the appeal can be handled without needing to meet the DS criteria by third parties", that feels in line with the changes proposed to DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appeals procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Appeals and modifications is immediately available upon imposition of a restriction under the DS procedure. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think an AE sanction can be made unappealable for a certain time period, particularly at the time it is imposed. That said, an appeal of a reasonably placed sanction will almost certainly fail within the first six months, which is true not only for AE actions, but also for community imposed sanctions and a lot of types of indefinite blocks. Maxim(talk) 12:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that current policy prohibits a prohibition on appeals, I would venture that it would be valuable to prevent specious appeals. But perhaps that can be handled without an AE consensus or isn't a common issue from restrictions levied at AE. Anyway, I'd probably only allow such a use for appealing to AE, if it were desirable to change the policy on the point, allowing the other two locations to remain a location for appeal. (Need to review what the new version of the DS procedures says.) --Izno (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see a moratorium on appeals if they become disruptive, but otherwise I agree with my colleagues above. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1119983660"