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revision of this page, as edited by The C of E (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 30 November 2020 (→‎Statement by The C of E: withdrawn.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014) Motion none 9 November 2020
Amendment request: The Troubles none (orig. case) 24 November 2020

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014)

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 14:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
[1]

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 ProcrastinatingReader

Does the standard DS 1RRs excludeinclude all of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO? The DS 1RR notices, eg Template:American politics AE, states solely:

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.

However, the WP policy WP:1RR makes reference to ArbCom's 1RRs and states:

Additional restrictions on reverting may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, under arbitration enforcement [...]. These restrictions are generally called 1RR. The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert".

(emphasis mine). But none of ArbCom's procedures or templates make reference to WP:3RRNO, and the "clear vandalism" exemption that the templates does provide does not encapsulate everything on that list (indeed, it is only bullet #4). Extra exemptions from 3RRNO include copyright violations, material illegal in the US like "child pornography and links to pirated software" & BLP violations.

To add: There is a practical impact here. My query stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Full_protection_and_certain_politicians_(you_know_the_ones), where there was a mention of Special:Diff/987532889. An admin suggested that reverting this would burn an editor's 1 revert of the day, even though it's clearly an unsourced BLP violation, and thus should be exempt under WP:3RRNO. But it's not in the DS 1RR exemptions.

Awilley that was worded in a bit of a double negative way. I meant to word it in the positive (i.e. do the exclusions of WP:3RRNO apply). Same answer, but... amended. It's also worth noting that this discrepancy is in all arbitration templates, not just this one. ie {{IPA AE}}, {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}, and the generic wrappers too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: btw, if the net effect of the DS 1RR is to add "enforcing current consensus" to the list of exemptions, does that mean it's not part of the 3RR policy? So, even on these 1RR articles, an editor can still only enforce up to 3 current consensus per day until they're in breach of 3RR? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

Does the standard DS 1RRs exclude all of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO?" No. Those exemptions apply to all reverts everywhere, even if it's not explicitly stated in this particular 1RR template. The net effect of the wording in that template is to add "enforcing clearly established consensus" to the list of other exemptions like reverting vandalism and child pornography. To that effect it's worded poorly. It might be better to just say something along the lines of: In addition to the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO, edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from the edit-warring restriction. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. That's my opinion at least. ~Awilley (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the example edit in question: it is wildly inappropriate and I'm not defending it, but it was not unsourced. The convention in that article is to have all the citations in the body of the article and no citations in the Lead. And the conspiracy bit is supported in the body at Donald Trump#Promotion of conspiracy theories. And the user added a citation to the Lead here anyway. I'd still say it's a BLP violation for reasons of WP:WEIGHT, but I don't know that it's obvious enough to be able to invoke the exemption. If that example doesn't do it for you, it's not hard to find other borderline examples of unhelpful edits whose reverts wouldn't qualify for a 3RRNO exemption. ~Awilley (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Any restriction based on revert counting offers a first-mover advantage. It seems to me that the default should be to enforce BRD, rather than arguing how many angels are dancing on the head of a particular revert. BRD is a long-standing consensus view of how Wikipedia should work, and it puts the onus on the editor seeking to make the change, to achieve consensus.

The exception should be removal of controversial or negative material, where we should err on the side of exclusion unless the sourcing is robust.

I feel that there is too much emphasis on counting reverts and not enough on taking these disputes to Talk and working them out through methodical discussion and analysis. That's the behaviour we're trying to drive, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:01, 24 November 2020 (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.

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014): Clerk notes

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

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The exceptions listed at 3RRNO are designed to be "obvious and uncontroversial" and therefore reasonable for any individual to make without any repercussions. I would fully expect them to apply as exceptions to DS 1RR articles. The question of that specific edit - well, in my eyes it's a clear violation "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" with regards to a BLP, so I would certainly understand an individual attempting to revert under the exception as it certainly adds a strong bias to the article. Of course American Political articles are an absolute hot potato at present and reverting is not the way to solve the issue. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sanctions and restrictions are to be enforced with common sense, and the standard exceptions are standard exceptions for a reason. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consistent way to do have a xRR sanction without favoring either the first or second mover, and the use of 1RR accentuates this problem. The situation is bad enough with ordinary sanctions; having DS restrictions greatly complicates things, and can lead to a situation which prevents a fair solution. NYBrad proposes that all sanctions be enforced with common sense; I agree with him, but the DS regime makes common sense inapplicable. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with WTT and NYB here although I do agree with Awilley's assessment for the particular edit in question considering that sources for these claims were in the body of the article at that time. ON a more practical level, I think there seems to be agreement that anything that is exempt from 3RR should usually also exempt from 1RR or 0RR but what change or amendment is sought here specifically? Regards SoWhy 09:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with WTT and NYB's assessments. Maxim(talk) 15:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: The Troubles

Initiated by The C of E at 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" [2]
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request


Information about amendment request
  • "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"
  • Removal of restrictions
  • "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed"
  • "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed except in relation to sporting articles

Statement by The C of E

I would like to request removal of my Troubles restrictions because I do feel that the lesson has been learned. I feel I have shown in the past I am able to edit in these areas evenhandedly with John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and Gerry Mullan (politician) being some examples. The crux of the ban was based on me allegedly trying to get Londonderry on DYK on a politically sensitive day which was not desirable to consensus. While I have been under the ban, 1831 Londonderry City by-election ran on DYK on Ulster Day so I feel its not been done consistently. As for the judicial review article, I already explained that was an unfortunate coincidence and I had not been thinking about it at the time I wrote the article.

If removal is not acceptable, can I request then that it be amended to permit editing of sporting articles. The reason I ask is because I asked @Barkeep49: if I could edit GAA articles and he said no because of the sport's political culture. But most players and clubs are not political and I have done work in there previously without concern (Seán Quigley, Killian Clarke, Ian Burke, Gerry Culliton, Cillian O'Connor, PSNI GAA and Irish Guards GAA). So, if full removal is not desired, I would like it amended for clarity and so I am able to continue working on sporting articles please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that people are slightly misunderstanding my clarification request here @Beeblebrox: and @Worm That Turned:. I do not want to edit the GAA article, what I would like to do is make it clear if I am permitted to edit on the sportspeople and clubs who play Gaelic football and Hurling. Those aren't political if it is as @Joe Roe: stated that it doesn't come under the sanction. The reason I said "GAA" because I had assumed people knew that it was an encompassing term for Gaelic football and Hurling (as opposed to the sporting/political body) but I was mistaken and for that I apologise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: If GAA is off limits for its political associations, so be it. But I don't think sport as a whole is. Football and rugby for example aren't political. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: When I think of sports, I don't tend to connect them with politics even with GAA hence why I asked. I ask an honest question in good faith for clarification but now it looks like I am going to have the screw tightened for daring to ask. I could have just gone on and done the editing willy-nilly but I didn't, I tried to get it squared and understood fairly but it is upsetting when you try to do everything right and by the book and get pilloried for it again. As I see this may be how it is for this restriction, I formally withdraw my request The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

The WP:AE request mentioned a parallel discussion which is now at WP:AN archive. That WP:AN discussion was closed with the restrictions at WP:Editing restrictions#The C of E. Those restrictions handle my greatest concern as they seem to prevent further problems regarding DYK. Accordingly I am relaxed about whatever the Committee wants to do regarding the WP:AE topic ban. Nevertheless, I have to record that "allegedly trying to get Londonderry on DYK on a politically sensitive day" is an own-goal in an appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I participated in the AE discussion, and gave my reasons for why I supported imposing a topic ban there. I don't have anything in particular to add to that. I will say that the fact that a community discussion at AN also came to the conclusion that there was disruptive behavior which merited sanctions shows that outcome to be a reasonable one. I think best at this time if the editor does productive editing in other topic areas, and then revisits this in six months or a year. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:13, 30 November 2020 (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.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • AE doesn't exactly follow the same procedures as the full committee, but speaking only for myself, I'm not inclined to consider lifting a t-ban placed for such reasons, in one of our most contentious topic areas, after only three months. And while I do appreciate that they did ask [3] the admin who closed the original discussion if edits they were contemplating might violate the ban, the article in question has an entire section on "nationalism and community relations, so I should think the answer was rather obvious. While I am willing to be convinced, this does not fill me with confidence that lifting the ban is the right move. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just re-iterating what was said below, the top article on the subject makes it clear that the overall topic of Gaelic football is closely related to Irish nationalism. Further it stretches AGF to the breaking point to imagine the appellant wasn't already perfectly aware of that. I would suggest waiting at least 12 months before even considering appealing this again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's put aside the fact that sport in Ireland is closely connected to sectarian politics, and therefore doesn't even have to come under the "broadly construed" part of the sanction, or that one of the DYK hooks that led to the AE sanction specifically referred to Gaelic football. The crux of the AE decision and parallel discussion at AN was CofE's tendency to insert inflammatory political statements or offensive 'jokes' into DYK hooks on seemingly mundane topics. There's the NI-related examples cited at AE, which involved articles on several minor elections (1, 2 or a 3), a court case, a local council (and although CofE says "allegedly" above, he specifically asked that at least one of these run on The Twelfth). But also from the AN discussion: a Methodist hymn becomes an excuse to insult the Prophet Muhammad; a piece of public art becomes a coat-rack for homophobic slurs; three minor landmarks in New Zealand all happen to have a derogatory slur in their name; a university anthem somehow ends up summarised with a tangentially-related white supremacist slogan; the list goes on. The AE topic ban was fully justified and the broadly construed proviso is extremely important in this context. It has only been in place for a few months, and I see no indication from the above statement that CofE has learned anything from it since he still maintains this is a misunderstanding of isolated incidents. It isn't, and the topic ban should remain in place for the foreseeable future. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E and Worm That Turned: Yes, sorry for the confusing wording. I think that sport in Ireland is definitely included in the topic ban. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: Of course they are, as I think you're well aware. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see absolutely no reason to reduce this topic ban. Joe does an excellent job of summarising the links that I have reviewed, but my biggest concern is the fact that you have multiple times attempted to bring inflammatory subjects onto the front page on Wikipedia on dates that will exacerbate those concerns. Putting the word "allegedly" seals this for me - given there are clear comments which request the date, implying that you are either (AGF) unaware of ramifications of your actions, and therefore should be kept out of the area, or (ABF) lying through your teeth, and therefore should be kept out of the area and possibly out of Wikipedia all together. I am willing to accept that you can move on to less problematic editing with the topic ban (and other editing restrictions) in place, and I may reconsider after a significant period of non-inflammatory behaviour, but this was put in place only a few months ago. I thank our AE admins for coming up with a solution here that allowed CofE to continue editing, and I hope he realises that more drastic action could have been reasonably taken. WormTT(talk) 10:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The C of E, you appear to be reading Joe's statement differently to me. Due to the close nature of the sport and politics, editing any Gaelic football articles would be a breach of even a "narrow" view of the topic ban - you don't even need the "broadly construed" part. In other words, no, I do not believe you should be editing any of the Gaelic sports personality articles at present, due to the sports political culture. As you say, this view has been shared by Barkeep, and I believe it is also shared by Joe Roe, based on my reading of his statement (though I'm sure he'll be able to correct me if I'm wrong) WormTT(talk) 15:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with Joe and WTT. Regards SoWhy 14:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with all of the above. The topic ban is far too recent for us to consider lifting it on the basis that is no longer necessary, and I don't see any reason to conclude that the ban itself was unwarranted. I would advise CofE to stay far away from any topics having to do with Irish–British relations, whether in parliament or on the pitch, and to not appeal again until they have a solid track record of uncontroversial editing to point to (i.e. at least six months). – bradv🍁 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with everyone above, particularly Joe. I am voting to decline and this appeal of the topic ban raises some additional concerns about whether the issue is fully understood and how to avoid these same problems should the topic ban be lifted. Mkdw talk 19:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=991580741"