Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/6/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Tea Party movement | none | (orig. case) | 29 June 2022 |
| Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan | none | (orig. case) | 12 July 2022 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
Amendment request: Tea Party movement
Initiated by Mhawk10 at 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- My request is that a motion be made to strike the clause.
Statement by Mhawk10
The current clause states should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy
. There do not appear to be any active discretionary sanctions in this area based upon the arbitration enforcement logs (2013, 2014, 2015). Since the discretionary sanctions have been superseded by WP:AP2, and decision sanctions are distinguished from discretionary sanctions by the text of the case, this is a zombie clause that's still in force but can never be used. A motion to strike this zombie clause would help to complete the clean-up from when this got merged with AP2. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
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.
Tea Party movement: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Tea Party movement: Arbitrator views and discussion
- If some arb wants to draft it I'll support it, but I also don't think any change is needed. Enforcement is now done through AP2 and the Tea Party DS were superseded into that. As such there is no Tea Party DS to be enforced and so the enforcement language is moot. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Barkeep49; the motion to accept AP2 included a focus "on a broad topic and will examine allegations ... [including] the Tea Party Movement topic", and the Tea Party DS is not listed in the DS awareness codes. It might not have been formally superseded by Remedy in the case or an ARCA motion -- and if the motion to open the case had not specifically included the Tea Party I might be more in agreement -- but it seems fairly clear that any Tea Party-related sanctions are part of AP2 DS now. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I am generally in favor of removing old or outdated sanctions, removing this one doesn't really change anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, I thought we had already closed this one. I don't think any action is needed. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan
Initiated by Barkeep49 at 19:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Repeal of topic ban
Statement by Thepharoah17
I got a one year topic ban in this area and would like to appeal the ban. Apparently, my editing was disruptive and I pledge to change that. I never meant any harm with my edits. In any case, I just took a seven month break from Wikipedia and am ready to contribute positively. I was kind of busy in the past few months. If you let me back, I promise I will contribute positively. There was a sockpuppet that I was dealing with and things may have gotten a bit messy but I promise there will be no disruption from me. You can look at my talk page history and see that I have never been disruptive. By the way, I am not sure if I am appealing this the right way or if I have to appeal to the arbitration committee i.e. I did not know what to put for 'user imposing the sanction' so I just put ArbCom. The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt (and did not even get one of the diffs correct). Go through my talk page history and you will find almost no warnings. You want to extend the topic ban, go ahead. I fully swear 100% to god that I have NEVER been disruptive. That case was opened by a banned user. That one month block btw, I’m not sure what it was for i.e. I think it was supposed to be an arbitration block but it was because a user went forum shopping. I am telling you I am 100% innocent. The block on the French wiki was because I was reverting a sockpuppet's edits on that wiki. I am telling you, though, I am 100% innocent. If you do not believe me, that is your choice. The topic ban is not even possible. Banned users cannot open arb cases. Do whatever you want. Honestly, I don’t even know why I even came back. The whole thing is just weird but again do whatever you want. Banned users cannot open arb cases and users like Levivich cannot do (or are not supposed to be allowed to do witch hunts). Before that point, I had NEVER really had any warnings. He did a witch hunt and portrayed me as a disruptive editor. I am telling you, though, I am not a disruptive editor. Believe whoever you want. It is your choice. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you. BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich
Two things I'd like to raise: First, the last edit Thepharoah17 made prior to posting this request is this from Dec. 6, which I won't characterize, but I think reviewing admins should read. Second, I think it would help to see a few examples from the past year where Thepharoah17 has resolved a content dispute with another editor, or at least engaged in discussion of content with another editor, to demonstrate that their approach has indeed changed from the approach that led to the TBAN. Levivich[block] 18:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- For convenience of those reviewing this and the next appeal, and maybe for Pharoah's benefit, let me quote WP:KURDS#Thepharoah17:
4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor,[1] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter.[2][3] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[4][5][6], pushing an anti-Kurd POV,[7][8][9][10] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State.[11]
- Passed 12 to 0 at 14:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Statements by uninvolved Administrators when posted at Arbitration Enforcement
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The topic ban was placed in February 2021 with a note that it can be appealed after 12 months. They were blocked for a week by El_C for violating the topic ban in March 2021 [12] which they unsuccessfully appealed here. They were block again in May 2021, this time for 1 month, following this AE thread. This clearly shows the claim that they have never been disruptive to be incorrect. Looking at their talk page, it seems there have been several issues relating to deletion since then but none have been in the area of the topic ban. However, this appeal is their first (and so far only) contribution to the project since December when they were indefinitely blocked on the French Wikipedia for Kurdistan-related disruption. All this together, and particularly the last two points, mean I'm leaning towards not accepting the appeal now - I'd prefer to see another 6 months of clearly good editing in other topic areas first. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia.
you are free to make positive contributions to Wikipedia about every other subject you can think of.If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you.
It's not about telling us things, the evidence of your contributions shows that you very much were disruptive. You need to show us, through your edits, that you no longer are.BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Thepharoah17 makes it clear that the basis for your topic ban was not just "reverting a sock puppet".- In order for your topic ban to be lifted you need to demonstrate three things:
- That you understand why your past behaviour was disruptive
- That you are now able to make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia without being disruptive
- That if the topic ban is lifted you wont return to the behaviour that resulted in the topic ban in the first place.
- Regarding point 1, not only have you not demonstrated this, it's becoming clear that you don't (or possibly don't want to) understand this; with no recent edits we have no evidence on which to evaluate point 2, but your edits from December do not make a good case for you. The lack of recent edits also make point 3 hard to judge, but your actions on the French Wikipedia after being topic banned here and your lack of understanding of why your actions were disruptive don't fill me with confidence. I'm now a firm decline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would oppose removing the tban at this time. Our first obligation is to the reader, then the editors contributing to those articles in a positive way. I don't see lifting the tban as helping either group, given the statements, prior blocks and insufficient time actually contributing in a constructive manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
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.
Kurds and Kurdistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- This was copied from Arbitration Enforcement. I moved it here as it was ineligible for appeal at AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Kurds and Kurdistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I am not seeing the kinds of evidence that would lead me to over turn this topic ban per the concerns noted by Thryduulf and Dennis Brown. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Decline Actions speak louder than words, and there is ample evidence that lifting this ban would not be constructive. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Decline In light of the evidence, it will take months of good behavior and productive editing before I would consider any other result. - Donald Albury 20:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the best of times I think taking a break from Wikipedia (which by itself is not a bad thing) and upon returning immediately asking for the lifting of sanctions is problematic, but the editing before the break puts me firmly in the decline camp. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)