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 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 3 October 2014 (→‎Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough: archiving closed clarification request). 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
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Pseudoscience none (orig. case) 1 October 2014
Clarification request: Sexology (Neotarf) none (orig. case) 27 September 2014
Clarification request: Sexology (TParis) none (orig. case) 12 September 2014

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

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

Clarification request: Pseudoscience

Initiated by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) at 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage

My apologies in advance if I've botched the maze of templates involved with this process in any way.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience establishes standard discretionary sanctions as its final remedy. It has, shall we say, an interesting history of amendments. Its current form authorizes sanctions "for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" (emphasis mine). Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions lists the areas to which discretionary sanctions currently apply, including "Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science" (emphasis mine); this wording is also used in the discretionary sanction alert template for the associated case.

It is my assumption that this is a distinction without a difference, and that the sanctions apply regardless of namespace. I inquired with Sandstein to ensure I was correct in my reading, as he appears to be among the more active arbitration enforcement administrators. He suggested that I refer the issue here for more explicit clarification. And so, I have.

Statement by Sandstein

The reason why I recommended that Squeamish Ossifrage ask here is that I'm not so sure that the answer is all that obvious. As Salvio giuliano writes, discretionary sanctions apply to all pages, not only articles, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise", but – it seems to me – that is precisely what the remedy in question does by specifying that sanctions apply to ""all articles relating to pseudoscience", underlining mine. If that is (as I suspect) not what the Committee intended, I recommend that the remedy and others like it are amended to read "for the topic of pseudoscience" or similar.  Sandstein  18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Your interpretation is correct. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions, the rules that are to be applied to determine whether an edit is covered by discretionary sanctions are the ones outlined in the topic ban policy, i.e. this section. As a result, unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, [discretionary sanctions apply to] all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear.

      Looking at previous cases, I see "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with X", "pages related to the Y, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions" and "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Z"; however, I don't doubt that, irrespective of the different formulations, all these mean the same thing: all edits concerning X, Y and Z are subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of namespace.

      Then again, we could pass a motion amending all provisions authorising DS to read "for all edits" rather than "all articles or pages", but, if I can be honest, this looks like a waste of time to me. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Salvio. By "clearly and umambiguously specified otherwise", I'd expect some sort of phrase such as "but not in project space" or "for articles only". It's pretty clear to me that the discretionary sanctions extend outside of article space. I'm happy to support a motion, but I don't see that it's necessary. WormTT(talk) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Sexology (Neotarf)

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Sexology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

[1]

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


Statement by Hell in a Bucket

[[3]] Discretional sanctions specifically apply to self identifying transgender people, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered woman and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Also if you look at the issue of [[4]] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments [[5]] identical to what was stated on ANI. The views at Arb Enforcement is that this is not article related therefore unactionable, I believe that the remedy includes treatment of "any" transgender person. Does this remedy only apply to BLP articles or editors as well? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this in an email to NYB which was only part of my questions but I want to post this here too [[6]] under the subheading "Defamatory Terms" it reads "Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting." Letting go the fact that this decision is closed ) which I will not pursue further I think a clarification is warranted for future reference. Apparently the drama meter is up right now and a big reason is because of the dispute of woman rights, civility and maintaining editing atmosphere that is not demeaning. I am quite sure User:Neotarf would agree on those principles. I also think that if it's established that the remarks are offensive Neotarf will refrain from making them but let's at least agree it's demeaning to a transgender person, the question is does this remedy only apply for articles or does it apply to other editors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carolmooredc

Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well. The relevant passage is:

The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.

The problem is the phrase "any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." sounds to some like it includes editors, despite the previous mention of articles.

Hell in a Bucket is not the only person to have misread this. I have been threatened with sanctions for once accidentally and once unknowingly calling two different transgender editors "he". I've been repeatedly badgered by someone (whether female or transgender, I'm not sure) who I admitted I only thought was a "he" but who finally admitted she was a "she", but doesn't advertise the fact. I guess I should ask her if that's what has her so ticked off. In fact I just noticed that this conversation - User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Simplicity_for_the_confusion - is mostly about people being not sure if it was effrontery to use he about an editor on a talk page. (This a sub-thread of another Hell in a Bucket posting on the topic.) Check it out.

I sure would like to see it made much clearer you are talking only about article space and not just article space. Anything that makes it a bit clearer in the actual section (bolding the word article or writing "only article", for example) would be a big help. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Sexology (Neotarf): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The context here is a closed AE thread in which the AE administrators concluded that (1) the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Sexology and Manning cases apply only to articles, not to noticeboard discussions, and (2) the single comment in question did not warrant action in any event. I perceive the second of these conclusions as clearly correct, and hence need not reach the first. This is not a useful request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing requiring further action, broadly per Newyorkbrad. AGK [•] 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to disagree with the outcome of the AE thread. No action required here. WormTT(talk) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well, well count me in among those who thought that. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Sexology (TParis)

Initiated by v/r - TP at 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Sexology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive264#Request_warning_to_be_expunged

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

Statement by TParis

  • I would like to know if Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive264#Request_warning_to_be_expunged is a broad enough consensus to meet the threshold listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications #2 requiring a consensus at the administrator's noticeboard ("AN") to have the decision by Sandstein to list me as sanctioned with a warning under this case overturned.--v/r - TP 19:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sandstein: Righteo - I didn't feel comfortable calling a consensus of four editors a consensus that could uncontroversially overrule an Arbcom sanction/warning, even as an enforcement action and not as part of a case, and I wasn't prepared to argue that such a precedent should be set either way.--v/r - TP 20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arbcom: Regarding Sandstein's question of where to log violations of WP:AC/DS#Decorum, I am not at all opposed to being listed in a log if one were to be created for it specifically. I only oppose where it is logged currently.--v/r - TP 04:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Arbcom: Hey folks, I've already had an ANI thread stall on me, could we please get a resolution out of this?--v/r - TP 01:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

The four editors who commented in that section supported TParis's appeal, which in most Wikipedia discussions would constitute a consensus in favor of their position. But I don't really have any basis on which to form an opinion one way or the other about whether they were uninvolved editors (for whichever meaning of "uninvolved" the Committee may have intended), or whether this relatively limited degree of participation constitutes the "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved participants required to sustain an appeal.

On the merits, despite the disagreement of these other editors, I remain of the view that an editor who misbehaves in an AE discussion concerning a topic covered by discretionary sanctions is, themselves, subject to the discretionary sanctions authorized for that topic area, and that the warning at issue (meant as the mildest possible sanction, and not to be confused with a no-longer-loggable alert) was therefore correctly logged.

Moreover, to the extent that the sanction was also in application of WP:AC/DS#Decorum, this case raises the question of whether and where sanctions authorized by that provision should be logged.

While I don't have strong feelings about any of these questions, some clarification with respect to any of them might be helpful for future cases.  Sandstein  19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Salvio giuliano: I appreciate the feedback. In this case, though, I consider that my action was appropriate to the misconduct at issue. Indeed, a brief block might have been preferable, also in view of the fact that TParis is an administrator, about the conduct of which the community tends to have higher, not lower, expectations. Of course, such appreciations are a question of individual judgment and temperament, and it is therefore to be expected that different people will come to different conclusions. But the mere fact that my appreciation of the situation doesn't match yours doesn't mean that I didn't exercise my best judgment and common sense. If the ArbCom delegates discretionary sanctions authority to individual administrators, it must accept that they will come to conclusions that may differ from those of individual arbitrators in any given case. Otherwise you'd be better off doing the job yourselves.  Sandstein  15:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newyorkbrad: If the Arbitration Committee concludes that TParis's appeal to AN was successful, or if the Committee itself undoes the warning on appeal, then I certainly accept that. But as I have said, I am of the view that the warning was appropriate. Therefore I don't quite understand what it is that you would like me to do.  Sandstein  13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Arbcom, please don't create any new procedures or any new logs for decorum warnings. The existing ones are working. TParis has argued that the warning to him was logged in the wrong place, but I disagree. If there was to be a warning at all under WP:AC/DS#Decorum, surely it should be added to the log of whatever Arbcom case the complaint was brought under. In my opinion Arbcom should treat this request from TParis as though it was an arbitration enforcement appeal. On that basis, Arbcom has jurisdiction to grant the request if it wants to (without being worried that it is interfering with the closure of the AN thread he filed). Another way to handle this would have been for TParis to file an arbitration enforcement appeal at WP:AE. If that had been done, I'd probably vote to grant the appeal and remove the logged warning. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action by NE Ent

Per WP:IAR and the obvious trend here I've removed the warning on the sexology [7]. NE Ent 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Sandstein has been brought before ArbCom numerous times over the years for misguided and/or heavy-handed actions in areas subject to discretionary sanctions with this just being the latest incident. I think it would be nice if the Arbs would show some official displeasure with his conduct. At the very least he should be advised or instructed to be more judicious and respectful when carrying out his admin duties in this area. Perhaps you can include it in a motion to grant the appeal by TParis.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Sexology (TParis): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have reviewed the discussion on the noticeboard, including Sandstein's detailed comments there. On the substance of the request, while I understand Sandstein's technical points, on balance I fully agree with TParis that it is unreasonable and misleading for him to be listed as a DS-warned party under either the Manning decision and/or the Sexology decision. (This obviously doesn't mean I condone calling editors "morons," and I'm glad TParis understands that the term was inappropriate.) I also agree with TParis that the discussion on AN has reached a consensus in his favor on this issue. ¶ As a matter of DS procedure, the appeal-to-AN alternative would ordinarily call for assessment of consensus on the noticeboard itself by an uninvolved administrator, rather than by the Committee. However, due to a lull in the AN discussion it aged off the active AN board and into the archive, and I think it would be excessively wikibureaucratic to insist that the thread be pulled from the archive back onto AN so that an administrator can close it with the obvious result. ¶ With respect to Sandstein's inquiry concerning whether 4 editors is sufficient for consensus, I would say it depends on what is being discussed. If the subject of the discussion were a site-ban, participation by 4 editors would be woefully insufficient. In this instance, though, given the limited nature of the sanction and the fact that everyone who wanted to discuss it had an opportunity to do so, I believe there is sufficient basis for an outcome—particularly when the alternative would not be to declare the appeal unsuccessful, but to reopen the discussion in either the same or a different venue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that we don't need to create a new logging location; we should just drop the warning that was given, as being unnecessary. I would appreciate if Sandstein would just accept this outcome so we can close this request out, as otherwise, unnecessary additional time will be spent on what everyone seems to agree is a very minor matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I agree with Sandstein that edits to an AE thread are covered by the underlying discretionary sanctions. However, and I find myself repeating this, the administrators manning the AE noticeboard need to use their best judgment and common sense when determing what the most appropriate course of action is in any given case. Here, TParis' use of the word "morons" was inappropriate; redacting the insult was a good idea as was leaving a note on his talk page, urging him to be more civil. What was an overreaction was making it a big deal, by logging the warning on the relevant case page like a discretionary sanction. After all, this was an isolated case of incivility and was not part of a pattern – at least, from my experience. Those who commented during the AN discussion reached the correct conclusion, in my opinion; and, while 4 people is a bit on the low side for these things, I agree with Brad that for the purpose of determining the number of people required to overturn a sanction, its severity should be taken into account (also, those commenting were, if I'm not mistaken, entirely uninvolved, which partly makes up for their small number). So, for all these reasons, I think the warning should be removed from the log. Also, in my personal capacity, I'd like renew my request to Sandstein to please be less heavy-handed in future and to first consider talking to the other editor as a person, instead of reaching immediately for his DS quiver. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the consensus on AN and that of the arbs who have commented, I have just removed the log entry. Unless one of my colleagues disagrees, I'd say this can be archived now. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I also don't endorse the "morons" comment, I agree with Salvio and Newyorkbrad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Sandstein's warning was within the letter of the proverbial law, I'm not sure it was an ideal course of actions, per those above. Removal from the log would likely be ideal. In this case although a block would also have likely been within the letter, I don't think it would bevery consistent with the general actions taken against users/administrators that use such language, especially because of his willingness to redact. NativeForeigner Talk 06:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I wrote before, but clearly not. TParis, your comment was inappropriate - especially so in the forum it was written. It's hard enough to enforce arbitration decisions, without having to worry about decorum issues. That said, I don't believe it needed a formal warning and it certainly shouldn't be logged there. I don't see that the warning needed to be "logged" at all - in future, if an admin is being troublesome at AE, take to Arbcom - who can have a quiet word. At any rate, I believe the warning should be removed, and it appears that the community consensus (though of a small number of editors) agrees with that. WormTT(talk) 07:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a strange interpretation, in any event, to call a warning a "sanction". I would therefore eliminate this sanction from the log in question, then close this request. AGK [•] 09:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=628094223"