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 MPants at work (talk | contribs) at 16:23, 18 September 2017 (→‎Statement by MjolnirPants). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/4/0
[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
Amendment request: Eastern Europe none (orig. case) 26 August 2017
Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015) Motion none 9 September 2017
Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 none (orig. case) 15 September 2017
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Eastern Europe

Initiated by Aquillion at 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Eastern Europe arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Log_of_article-level_discretionary_sanctions
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Aquillion

Mass killings under Communist regimes has been fully-protected for the past six years following an WP:AE request here. Putting aside the fact that full protection for content disputes is intended for a "cooling down" period and that indefinite full protection is not, I think, actually an available option for dealing with content disputes, most of the comments there (where there was relatively little discussion for such a drastic step) seem to support full protection for the period of one year - it has now been six. Nearly everyone involved in the dispute has long ago moved on, and while it's reasonable to assume that the topic and article will still be controversial, our dispute-resolution mechanisms have improved dramatically since 2011 - it seems silly to suggest that this article, alone, is so controversial that it needs to remain fully protected until the end of time. Anyway, I'm requesting that the restrictions on this article, including full protection, be removed. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, as an additional (and possibly more important) point, I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions and placing some sort of limit on the length a page can be full-protected under WP:AE without explicit authorization from ArbCom - while an admin's authority in executing WP:AE is necessarily broad, I don't believe that protecting a page for six years as a means of resolving a content dispute was intended to be something one administrator could decide to do on their own, even there. If it is intended to be an available option, we need to update WP:PP to say so; but I find it hard to believe there would be consensus for that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to some of the people who argued against this (a position that genuinely startled me; I feel that this article fell through the cracks and that the idea of leaving a page full-protected for six years over a content dispute is genuinely and flatly indefensible), I'll reiterate what I said above. I don't believe that eternal full-protection is or was ever intended to be a method to resolve disputes; requiring constant re-assessment of consensus for every edit on a controversial article, in perpetuity, goes beyond what administrators are chosen for. Obviously it can be used as a temporary method to resolve disruptive disputes, but most of the people involved in the original dispute have long since moved on, and no one, I think, has shown that the dispute is currently ongoing or that removing protection is likely to result in significant disruption (and if it does, the page can always be locked again. And as contentious as this page is, we have since dealt with and resolved far more contentious articles and far more serious arguments without resorting to eternal protection - which part of the reason why I found the six-year-long protection on this article so startling. Why this page and not Donald Trump, or Climate Change, or Black Lives Matter or Gamergate Controversy or Falun Gong or Israel and its numerous sub-pages? If we have managed to resolve disputes on those pages without resorting to such a drastic measure, why do people think we can't do it here? Yes, the freely-editable nature of Wikipedia can sometimes be a pain to deal with, but I don't feel that permanently forcing all edits to go through administrator consensus-assessment is a viable answer to disputes.
The arguments some people are making below seems to be that first, eternal full protection is not burdensome, and second, that this topic is so inherently contentious that the page must remain locked forever. For those who argue that indefinite full protection is not burdensome because edits can be done via edit-requests, I strongly disagree - protection by its nature discourages new and casual users (who are unlikely to understand or be able to navigate to a draft or to know how the edit-protection system works), slows editing to a crawl for even relatively uncontroversial edits, wastes the time and energy of administrators, and generally discourages people from focusing on the protected page. And looking at the page's history, I feel it shows the damage full protection has done - the history here does not reflect the amount of improvement you would expect a page on a high-profile topic to show over the course of six years. For these reasons and more, full protection is an extreme and draconian measure taken only to shut down ongoing disruption; I don't feel that anyone can credibly argue that there is any ongoing disruption facing this page six years on. Some content disputes, yes, but well below the level that would require even the most basic steps in dispute resolution. "Some people are making bad deletion arguments" isn't the kind of thing that calls for indefinite application of one of the most draconian measures ArbCom has in its toolkit. -Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I was briefly involved on that page post-protection, and I found that trying to build talk page consensus without the ability to edit the article was enormously difficult even for a minor point. The page does not meet our current standards for neutrality and due weight. There are good sources on the topic, that need to be accurately represented, rather than the hotchpotch that exists at the moment; but there is no realistic way to fix this. It's been long enough that I think Arbcom should consider lifting the protection. If the very idea is making some people go "Oh, heck no" then keep some restrictions to prevent the previous problems from recurring; a 1RR restriction + EC protection should do the trick. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: How is the difficulty of obtaining consensus a sign that anything is working? Few to none of the participants in that discussion were from the bad old days; they were newer folks, like myself, seeking to improve a page. We have no evidence, really, that the folks who disrupted the page the previous time will do so again; we have evidence that there are people who wish to make constructive edits who are being hindered by the protection. Continuing the protection can almost be read as "the page as it stands is better than any version likely to occur after unprotection"; and ARBCOM is supposed to confine itself to behavior, is it not? As I said above, we could easily place restrictions to prevent edit warring; or even, as Iridescent suggests, place the page on probation, so to speak, and reprotect it if needed. Vanamonde (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Yes, the current restriction does a good job of preventing editors who want the page, if it exists at all, to read "mass killings under communism are a hoax perpetrated by capitalist regimes to undermine the fatherland" or some such crap. Such folks will never reach any consensus under the current system, and that's a good thing. BUT there are others (such as myself) who believe that (for instance) if a source has been disputed by others of similar weight, then Wikipedia should present the debate, rather than one of the sources in WIkipedia's voice. I raised these concerns with respect to a single lead paragraph on the talk page; it took me about 40 talk page posts, over the course of a month, to get that edit through. Long enough that I abandoned my efforts on that page, and began editing in places where the effort:outcome ratio was more acceptable. Editor time and effort is our most precious resource. We need a more efficient way to improve the page, unless there is evidence that that will lead to previous disruption continuing. Do we have such evidence? Most of the protagonists of that previous case are no longer active. Others have topic-related restrictions. Is there evidence of disruptive posting on the talk? Only by newbies, who can be dealt with through EC protection. Is there evidence of socking on related pages? Not that I am aware of; but nonetheless preventable through EC protection. Edit-warring can be dealt with through 1RR. Draconian measures may once have been necessary; I see no evidence that they are any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nug

Keep the status quo. Looking at the page history[1], the current mechanism appears to be working, the article is being improved. If Vanamonde finds it difficult to build talk page consensus under the current mechanism, then it certainly won't get easier to build consensus if the restrictions are removed. --Nug (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

I'm uninvolved but wearily familiar with the Digwuren case, and would argue squarely in favor of keeping the status quo; if anything, this enforced take-it-to-the-talk-page is a remedy Wikipedia should be using more often, not less. If trying to build talk page consensus without the ability to edit the article was enormously difficult, that's a sign that the remedy is working. If the protection is lifted, it needs to be on the understanding that the moment the usual suspects on both sides re-start edit-warring, either the protection will be re-imposed or that edit-warring will be dealt with by means of long-term blocks. ‑ Iridescent 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: The issue with this page (and others targeted by the EEML) is the presence of numerous editors on both sides who are certain that the status quo is so egregiously wrong that they feel duty bound to change it; if people have convincing evidence that the status quo version of the page is Just Plain Wrong they should have no problem persuading other editors of this; if they can't persuade other editors of this it's a likely sign that the problem they intend to fix isn't as problematic as they think. This is one of the pages that triggered the most important sentence of WP:DIGWUREN (and arguably the most significant ruling in Arbcom's history with regards to the limit of AGF and the interaction of content disputes and user conduct issues), "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia", and there's a reason this group of pages were the battleground on which that particular decisive battle for the future course of Wikipedia's governance was fought. Bluntly, if the editors can't get on with each other enough to cobble together consensus for changes, we don't want them editing these pages. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RhinoMind You mean, like the enormous FAQ section at the top of the talk page that explains in details what the issues are, why the page is protected, and that edits to that article need to be discussed on the talk page, or the massive pink-and-red box that pops up when you try to edit the page explaining the process one needs to go through to agree proposed changes? I'm not sure how much clearer we could make this. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I don't have an opinion about the specific page mentioned, but I do want to comment on the suggestion to "look at [...] placing some sort of limit on the length a page can be full-protected under WP:AE without explicit authorization from ArbCom".

AE blocks are limited in duration to 1 year, but occasionally situation warranting an indefinite block crop up at AE. Wheat happens in these cases is that an indefinite block is placed, but the restrictions on modifying an AE action last only for one year, meaning a single admin may unblock on their own countenance after that point. If there is a problem with long protections resulting from an AE action that are not being reduced or removed due to bureaucracy despite their being a rough consensus that protection is no longer required, then a similar 1-year limit to AE protections would seem to be the simplest resolution. I do not know whether this is actually a problem, I have not looked, but the comments above this one suggest that if the problem does exist this article is not an example of it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RhinoMind and Iridescent: only administrators get an edit button on full-protected pages. The "big pink box" is visible to non-administrators by clicking the "view source" button - but that is not likely to be intuitive. The box probably needs to be updated though - "Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions." links to the original remedy superceded by standard discretionary sanctions in October 2011 and the case renamed in 2012. The current remedy is just an authorisation and contains no details, unlike the old one, the details being at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This is a matter for the article talk page though, where I will post shortly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Keep the status quo. The article used to be a regular battleground, and the fact is that "competing articles" of worse quality were the result of the compromises made. The concept that the prior discussions are now invalid is, I fear, quite the wrong way to go. Also note that some of the prior battlers are now looking here to find a means of deleting this article while not deleting Anti-communist mass killings and other articles which are far weaker than this one. A clear case where SQA is the best result. And allowing the editors who propose on the talk page that we simply delete the article without revisiting the prior discussions here would basically make a mockery of the past solution. Note that both "quick order deletion discussions" in 2010 resulted in clear Keep results. Collect (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RhinoMind

Lockings are of course undesirable, but I do not feel experienced enough with this procedure to have any meaningful opinion on how it should be administered. But ...

  • I suggest that Full protections/lockings are accompanied by a tag on the article-front (not TalkPage) that explains that there is some kind of dispute. Otherwise lockings would just enforce acceptance of articles that aren't acceptable and readers would assume that everything is ok, which isn't true.
  • Also, I suggest that some information on the TalkPage is included, so editors are informed on how to engage with the article during a locking. ie. they present concrete proposals for editorial changes on the TalkPage, complete with proper reliable sources and all, and after a discussion a consensus (of reason and argumentation, not feeling!) might be reached with time. If so, administrators can then install the editorial changes in the locked article. RhinoMind (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: No. That is the short answer. You are not considering my #1 entry. The links you posted might perhaps do it in relation to my #2, although I don't understand how you got to your link number two where the edit-procedure is loosely explained. For me there isn't any Edit-button to click in the first place. RhinoMind (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AmateurEditor

I support removal of full protection, but then I opposed it being imposed at the time. I also support replacing it with Extended confirmed protection and 1RR for now, as suggested by Vanamonde93. I disagree with Aquillion that the disruptive editors have moved on to other things (some of them have just changed their usernames), but I don't see that as a reason to retain full protection. Full protection of the article may actually be shielding them from consequences by freeing them from having to disrupt progress on the article via reverts and edits to the article. Allowing editing may help expose those editors by giving them enough rope to hang themselves. Alternatively, it would allow them to edit productively if they chose to do so. If anything, the full protection has given disruptive editors effective veto power through the imposed edit-consensus process and some of the good-faith editors have moved on. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

I'm one of the admins who was active at AE back in 2011 when the decision was taken to apply indefinite protection to Mass killings under Communist regimes. The filer of this ARCA, User:Aquillion, has not stated that they tried any other of the prior steps suggested under WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications before filing here:

  • ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision or
  • request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN")

The administrator who closed the AE and applied the full protection is User:Timotheus Canens has been recently active, and should be easy to consult. The concept that it is shocking to keep an article protected this long probably reflects unawareness of the nastiness of some of the areas that are still under discretionary sanctions. In my opinion the Mass killings article easily falls under the 'gigantic waste of time for everyone' category though some well-intentioned content editors who were very diplomatic might be able to rescue it. In part the trouble is that some people consider this an artificial topic. We have other articles on mass deaths whose existence as an article is not questioned. For example, the article on World War II casualties is about a real topic and few people would criticize the title.

In terms of actual improvements carried out during the full protection, the history indicates there were at least 23 changes made (by admins) since 1 January 2013 in response to edit requests. For another opinion on what to do (if anything), see User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging#Mass killings under Communist regimes. TTAAC is one of the people who made content improvements to a draft that was kept open during the protection.

My opinion is that this article is hard to improve, not due to full protection, but due to the difficulty in finding agreement among editors. Lifting the protection would fix one problem but not the other. Instead of stasis and very slow progress, we might have constant thrashing at ANI and AE and some article bans being handed out to individuals. But then again I could be wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by T. Canens

The protection was placed following the AE thread Ed linked to because it was necessary to enforce the "consensus required" restriction previously placed on the page (by Sandstein). I see that some commenters seem to think - incorrectly - that the two are one and the same.

I don't have time to review the past several years' worth of history right now, so I express no view on whether Sandstein's restriction is still needed. However, as long as that restriction remains, I'm strongly opposed to lifting the full protection, which adds only minimal inconvenience over the restriction, and, based on previous experience, is essential to its consistent enforcement. T. Canens (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I was the admin who some years back added a "consensus required" page restriction as a discretionary sanction to this article. I've not followed the article for a long time and I don't know whether the restriction is still required. I don't mind another admin or the ArbCom modifying or removing the restriction as they deem appropriate. I likewise don't have an opinion as to whether the page protection at issue here is (still) appropriate. In general terms, I find it preferable to sanction individual edit-warriors rather than to lock down a page for everybody, but I must assume that the editing conditions were at some time bad enough that T. Canens and I considered it necessary to impose page-level restrictions.  Sandstein  12:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

"Shine a light, and the roaches will run." Support removing the full protection and replacing it with extended confirmed protection and 1RR. Even one year is over-long for full protection. The solution to bad apples mucking up a page is to fish out the bad apples, not to make the page mostly unusable. It's already under DS, so dealing with long-term problematic editors in the topic will be comparatively easy and swift. The problem of the article being effectively frozen in a poor state and very difficult to improve is real. To the extent the topic may be artificial, that's a content matter and not an ArbCom issue. It is fixable by splitting (e.g. mass killings by the Soviet Union, by the PRC, etc., are certainly valid topics, since they proceeded from specific governments' policies, without any WP:SYNTH in play). No opinion on the bureaucracy questions about AE limits, auto-expirations, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:26, 4 September 2017 (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.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My first reaction to this request was that it shouldn't be necessary for any page on a wiki to be full-protected for more than six years. My second reaction, after reviewing the comments above and skimming the page history, is that this particular page may indeed be exceptional in which case we would presume that the AE admins are acting sensibly. It might be useful to have some input from other admins who have been active on the topic-area in general and this page in particular. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a pretty similar reaction to NYB. At first I figured I would definitely be supporting removing full protection from a page after multiple years. After reading some responses here, and seeing that the talk page of the article is fairly active and collaborative, it might actually be an exceptional case where this is a net benefit. I'd like to hear some more thoughts, but if we do try reducing the restriction on that page, I'd like to see it come with a condition where protection can easily be reapplied if the removal doesn't work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought process for AE appeals which arrive at the Committee is pretty straight-forward. We (ArbCom) are at the end of the appeals process for AE sanctions, similar to case requests. Therefore, my considerations are twofold: (a) where processes followed in the application of the sanction and in any subsequent appeals and (b) was the sanction imposed a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. In this instance the answer to both questions is yes, so I !vote to decline this appeal request and recommend it that be taken to the admin who originally imposed the sanction or to WP:AE.

    On the topic of having a limit to the amount of time page protections (and other sanctions on pages) can be placed I'm not convinced that's a good way forward. Firstly, blocks are more contentious and have a great affect on people than other sanctions and are, generally, more difficult to lift. Secondly, administrators aren't authorised to impose some page sanctions (such as, 1RR and 'consensus required') allowed by discretionary sanctions so having them expire after a year would mean that they expire (not that it changes to allow any admin to remove them). I'd also imagine that the imposing admin, AE admins and editors at AN would be very willing to amend/lift page restrictions which have been in place for long periods of time (especially when compared to blocks). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also decline with the same concerns as my colleagues above. I agree with Callanecc that a time limit after which page protections expire is not generally a good idea and for the same reasons. Doug Weller talk 11:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline The original admins who implemented the full protection and consensus required restrictions have given statements. The point of discretionary sanctions is to provide the community with the tools to handle some of our most serious and controversial areas of editing. The full protection should be removed via discussion at WP:AE, rather than ArbCom stepping in. The actual protection was not implemented by the case, rather the implementation of discretionary sanctions. Specifically on that point, there's nothing for us to clarify or amend. Mkdw talk 21:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline , with the same general view as Callanecc about time length limits for protection. Some pages are going to be problems for longer periods than one year, and this is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015)

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)


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



Information about amendment request
  • "Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs." (Same link; the material is short.)
  • Amend, to require either: (a) moving of these items, along with the other log actions already moved, into the new DS log pages; or (b) simple removal of the entries if they are not desired in the new log pages. Preferably (b), since similar material does not appear to be routinely kept in the new log pages, only sanctions and page protections, and a few other things.


Statement by SMcCandlish

Leaving behind the notifications and warnings in the "Enforcement log" sections of old case pages, while moving sanctions and all other log actions out of them into the new log pages, has an intensely prejudicial effect against those whose usernames remain in the original case pages' log sections. It gives a strong false impression that: there was a dispute, then those specific users still listed there got warnings, and thus the dispute stopped, because those were the real and only troublemakers. The exact opposite is usually the truth, with most of these cases having a sadly "rich" history of far worse problems and sanctions (often from the case itself, plus years of follow-on disruption) that no one sees unless they go looking in the newer log pages, which the average editor doesn't even know about.

From the original decision's discussion I'll quote the following material about the logging of actual sanctions, because it applies far more strongly to pointless retention of high-profile logging of mere notices and warnings for years on end:

[I]f an editor who is not indefinitely blocked is still around in five+ years, there is a good chance the sanction isn't useful anymore, and if by chance it is, it could be re-imposed. Also, "may be blanked" should be replaced with "shall be blanked" ... The may language is too open-ended, it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it? Courcelles 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also:

... [The change] is long overdue and will help the committee, the clerks, and the broader community keep track of what areas are under active DS, where there are current problems, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

... [I]t will make it much easier to pick up problematic editors who move from one controversial topic to the next as they accumulate sanctions. HJ Mitchell

These goals are not served in any way by retaining misleading "scarlet letters" from 2 May 2014 and earlier on the case pages to unfairly target particular editors who were not actually subject to sanctions. "You will be maligned forever because of a random date boundary" is just utterly arbitrary, in the particular, vernacular sense that WP:Arbitration is never supposed to be.

I was previously informed (over a year ago) that these items had not been moved into the log pages (or just removed), simply because a clerk had not gotten around to it. Today, moving them was turned down [2] on the basis that the above-cited motion explicitly excludes that material from being moved. Thus this amendment request. We really are in "it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it?" territory now, exactly as Courcelles warned.

Since DS alerts are only valid for a year, there's no point at all in retaining alert notices in the logs (on the case pages or the log pages) for longer, even if ArbCom wanted to retain actual warnings in the log (which is not presently done). From my talk page today:

The courtesy blanking of more than five-year-old DSLOGs already hides old bans from the search engine, even those that are still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

So, let's just be really clear about this: People who are still being disruptive are getting a form of courtesy and good-faith relief that is denied to those who are not, for no reason but a meaningless dateline.

Some of the intent-and-effects issues that were not resolved in the original motion weren't resolved at that time simply because of a desire to avoid making decisions "on the hoof" or "too quickly". Two-and-a-half years is plenty long enough.

PS: I have not listed any of the "affected users" as parties, despite the instructions in the amendment request template, because that would be tedious, a long list, and likely have a canvassing effect – there would surely be unanimous agreement from them that they don't want to be scapegoated for life over wrist-slaps that happened years ago. [I have, however, linked the usernames of the admins and [ex-]arbs directly quoted, which should ping them when I save this.]
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 9 September 2017 (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.

Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015): Clerk notes

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

Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Given the age of the notifications currently left on case pages (more than 2 years old), I wouldn't have a problem with them just being removed and replaced with a link to the central log (as is in the case page template). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that having the case pages include three-year-old notifications, but omit current ones, creates an undue weight problem. This set-up has confused me in the past, and if it confuses me then I'm sure it confuses others who spend less time than I do on the arbitration pages. I don't have a strong view on the best fix so will defer to others on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the change seems reasonable DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)


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]
Information about amendment request
  • Hijiri88: Topic ban (II)
  • 4) Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Japanese culture. Appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
Stricken on appeal.


Statement by Hijiri88

I would like to appeal this topic ban. I have been on my best behaviour since the ban was put in place, and have never violated it. I deeply regret my actions, including edit-warring and threats, that led to the original decision, and believe I have sufficiently reformed and made amends. I have also been doing my best to create content proactively despite the fact that the TBAN covered most of the topics I have a sufficient knowledge to edit in.

I have written a fair few articles on classical Chinese literature (see here and especially here). The problem is that writing on these topics is much more difficult for me than writing on classical Japanese poetry, which I studied in college and have access to an abundance of materials on, and can even visit and take photos of relevant historical sites associated with the poets (not something I could do without at least a week's vacation and air fare for poets from China). Also, last year during Asian Month I worked very hard to get just five articles on Chinese poets out over the course of the month, but the previous year (not during Asian Month) I had comfortably created 13 decent articles on Japanese poets in a single day. (None of these articles had anything to do with the Arbitration case, nor did the vast majority of my earlier contributions to Japanese culture articles.) And even though my French is not what it used to be, I have access to sources and am generally aware of the topic area, so that I found it easier to write articles on Japanese topics for fr.wiki than articles on pretty much anything else on en.wiki.[3] One of them was even drafted in English.

I really love writing articles for Wikipedia, and I would really love to go back to editing articles in my main area of expertise. And I promise that I will not engage in the kind of behaviour that led to the 2015 Arbitration case again.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm required to notify the other parties -- am I? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curly Turkey

"all pages relating to Japanese culture" was drastically overbroad from the beginning, and Catflap has since been indeffed. If this restriction ever was ever really preventative, it has long since ceased to be so, and now only prevents Hijiri from making his most useful contributions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Hijiri's originally problem was excessive page argument, justified somewhat by the fact that many of the pages he (and I)edited were worked by ill-informed trolls - several of whom are no longer with us - who appeared incapable of understanding the cultures, something of which Hijiri cannot be accused. He is a very useful Asian-pages editor, with close attention for high quality sourcing, something somewhat rare. He has in the meantime given evidence that he is producing good work on the areas outside his ban. I see no reason why his ban should not be revoked. All that is needed is a reminder not to get caught up in arguments: make one's point, adduce sources, and exercise patience.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schonken. Bring the diffs and make sure they are not stale. Secondly measure the putative NPA remarks at boards against the huge content contributions Hijiri makes(at Li He, for example, from 5kb to 50kb). I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Francis. You have an impressive musical knowledge, and that is invaluable for Wikipedia. We are talking about an editor with an impressive knowledge of East Asian cultures and whether he should be allowed back to edit on those topics. Both of you have been characterized in the past as persistently disruptive. Hijiri knows I have taken him to task more than once some years ago for excessive pettifogging. I see no sign of that now. Once editors start to 'profile' others for the usual etiquette/disruptive behavioural problems, the encyclopedic construction of Wikipedia is needlessly compromised. The vice of these arbitration issues is to get so caught up in personal bickering, that what an editor actually does in contributing quality material to their areas of specialized competence is lost from view. One should never wear grudges, esp. over trivia. 3 editors with strong competence in the area of Japanese articles (all of whom have had tiffs with Hiji) think his return to them would be a net positive.
The diffs you mention relate to a few brief comments Hijiri made in an extremely long thread where several reputable voices thought you disruptive. I have no opinion on it other than noting that what Hijiri stated was a variation on what several other editors were asserting. To pick him out for echoing what editors of high standing affirmed is not convincing.
The second diff refers to his differences with John Carter. I have amicable relations with both Hijiri and John, and again will not take sides.
Behaviour is problematical if there is a well-documented pattern: there is no such evidence for this (so far) regarding Hijiri's contributions for the last 9 months. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

Since I have been active in WP:CHINA and WP:JAPAN, I am an admirer of the content creation by Hijiri88 in East Asian topics. It can be a very contentious field with only very few experienced editors dealing with users pushing for WP:NPOV agenda. I can understand the frustration that led to the problematic behaviour. My recent interactions with the editor have been mostly positive, with only small remnants of the excessive/emotional arguments that was the scope of the original ban. After two years of relatively constructive editing, I am very supportive of lifting at least the topic ban on pages relating to Japanese culture at this time. Alex ShihTalk 13:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken

I disagree Hijiri has been on their best behaviour in the last year. I recall receiving some insults (which I let go in an ignore PAs logic), possibly a late reaction to me closing one of the numerous Japan-related ANIs Hijiri was involved in. Will look up the diffs if needed, but have no time right now. If modified, the remedy should rather be broadened to various sorts of obstructive behaviour, and certainly not rescinded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia (and others): was working on it. Let me first state clearly that as far as I'm concerned Hijiri doesn't deserve all that much editor time (including mine). The editor has created and contributed to time sinks ad libitum. I'd like that to stop. Which was the gist of my ANI thread close I alluded to above (and regarding which current arbitrator Drmies accused me at the time of not being severe enough against Hijiri and the editor with whom Hijiri was having a dispute then). After which Hijiri popped up at ANI again, and again, and again, absorbing quite a lot of editor time (their own and that of others, at ANI and elsewhere) that could have been spent much more productively elsewhere. So allow me to be as brief as possible.

  • 12:33, 25 January 2017 — As far as I can recall Hijiri's last insult directed at me. Within the time frame of "the last year". Accuses me of gaming, which I take as an insult. Hope I'm permitted to take that as an insult, so I didn't respond to the PA. Re. "I'm amazed that petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction" — Indeed: I'm a prolific editor on Bach-related topics: the diff above is taken from a long ANI thread on a Bach-related topic, which an admin attempted (unsuccessfully) to close as a "morass", and to which Hijiri had contributed profusely with their "petty sensitivities", without any regard for evaluating editors for "what they actually do in encyclopedic construction", far beyond the point where their aspersions had already been rejected multiple times. So I no further reacted to Hijiri in that thread: would have been counterproductive. But illustrates how Hijiri has a knack of never stopping to amaze others how for them "petty sensitivities count more in evaluating editors than what they actually do in encyclopedic construction".
  • Looking up the diff above I came across Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Requested block of User:Hijiri88, which resulted in an IBAN involving Hijiri, decided 00:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC), which is also within the "last year" timeframe, and illustrating Hijiri not being on their best behaviour in that period. The previous point can, as far as I'm concerned, be ignored (I was just illustrating that my memory hadn't played a trick on me).

Here's what I propose: originally Hijiri couldn't appeal to an ArbCom remedy before a year had passed. Maybe amend that provision to read that Hijiri can not appeal an ArbCom remedy before having stayed out of trouble for the period of a year. "Staying out of trouble" being defined as: no new sanctions levied against them, whether they be community-imposed sanctions or ArbCom sanctions. Maybe apart from "staying out of trouble" defined thus, also a restriction on Hijiri initiating new ANI postings about editors with whom they're involved in a dispute. Something like an "automatic boomerang" every time Hijiri plays that trick might be considered. Note that that directly connects to what I wrote in the closure of the ANI thread I closed a long time ago (and which I mentioned in my OP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re. Nishidani's suggestion above that no evidence has been brought to this ARCA request regarding disruptive behaviour patterns by Hijiri for the last 9 months: true. I have no clue whether such evidence can be found or not. Seems extremely unlikely I would go looking for such evidence (see my "time sink" and "doesn't deserve all that much editor time" kind of comments above). Anyway, when there is none of such evidence brought to this ARCA, my suggestion above simply translates to Hijiri waiting another three months before filing a request to be liberated from Arbitration remedies. Could live with that, without further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

Every time I'm confronted with the fact that Hijiri is subject to a topic ban, I'm surprised anew. I've noted him to be a bit tenacious (note that's "tenacious", not "tendentious") on talk pages, but only in situations where another editor was (deliberately or not) engaging in behavior that might justifiably be called "infuriating". In all, I've found Hijiri to be a damned good editor. I've worked with Hijiri in the past, and even butted heads with Hijiri in the past, and never encountered any behavior which I would consider to be indicative of someone who might benefit from a TBAN. Furthermore, Hijiri clearly has a great grasp of Japanese language and culture (a minor interest of mine; I don't claim any great expertise, but I can certainly recognize expertise) and would be a great boon to those pages. In the interest of improving the project, the best thing we could do with this TBAN is end it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just took a look at the diff and archive link provided by Francis above me. The "insult" linked is quite clearly anything but (it is an argument, not an insult), and the IBAN was not only voluntary on Hijiri's part, it was actively encouraged by him to put an end to what was some unarguably hounding behavior on the part of John Carter. It's also a little surprising that an IBAN was the only outcome, as several users commented on some highly questionable (read: explicitly blockable) behavior on the part of John. I'm guessing the fact that Hijiri was so amenable to an IBAN is the only reason John Cater escaped sanctions in that thread. I couldn't find a single editor defending John, and only a very small number of editors criticizing Hijiri specifically. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement SMcCandlish

Concur with the above. I encounter Hijiri88 regularly, and the editor is not at all disruptive or otherwise problematic on Asian culture topics or elsewhere, in my experience. What happened over Japanese poetry was a momentary blip, and even if some restriction were kept, it should be sharply narrowed to address the specifics of the case, not "Japanese culture" generally. I find it hard to credit that Hijiri88 would be disruptive in that topic area, going forward. The lesson appears to have been learned, and there's no evidence Hijiri88 is habitually intemperate or obsessive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:10, 18 September 2017 (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.

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm definitely willing to reconsider this restriction. I'd be leaning towards suspending the TBAN for 6-12 months (during which time it can be reinstated by any uninvolved admin) rather than removing it outright. However, I'd like the diffs of the comments mentioned by Francis Schonken before I make a final decision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Callanecc. Francis, I would probably have been more persuaded if you'd just waited till you had the time to post with actual evidence. Now, the expectations have been set high. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=801253013"