Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles | Motion | (orig. case) | 12 April 2022 |
Clarification request: Ryulong | Motion | (orig. case) | 11 April 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:
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles
Clarification request archived. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Shrike at 17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC) 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 ShrikeThis regarding following from WP:PIA Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [1] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen[2] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/WP:ANI/WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE
Statement by BishonenPlease see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Statement by ZeroI think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in. However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zerotalk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC) @Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zerotalk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishIsn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here. Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [13] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [14] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry. This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Statement by AtsmeWhile I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by AE regular, Dennis BrownI've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierFor the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC) 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. Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes
Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion
There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Motion: Palestine-Israel articlesExtended-confirmed restrictions apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at Arbitration Enforcement when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header is modified by replacing
Motion: Extended-confirmed restriction (draft)
The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Extended confirmed restriction) are amended by appending at the end the following list item:
The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
|
Clarification request: Ryulong
Initiated by Mythdon at 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Mythdon
I have a question as to whether the restrictions listed here are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed here and here) has expired.
Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following this discussion. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was blocked indefinitely shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said here "To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)" (the topic ban listed here here had already been imposed by that time).
I was unblocked in 2012 and back in 2016, I appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN, which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed here?
Based on to run under the current restrictions and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that to run under the current restrictions meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here.
It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation?
—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: I'm not sure what the policy was regarding discretionary sanctions back when this was originally imposed, but I've had different administrators give conflicting opinions about whether they thought the sanction(s) would remain in force after the probation expired.
- One administrator here said he was sure he did not have the authority to impose sanctions longer than the duration of the probation (in response to my question asking him why he changed a revert ban from "indefinite" to "for the duration of Mythdon's conduct probation". While another administrator at the time (Yunshui) said they "still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period.". While the imposing administrator (Fritzpol, who's now retired) said "When your conduct probation is over, you can ask me for a review and I'll look into it.". While FayssalF's clarification here as well as the remedy here (that I mentioned earlier), doesn't specify whether the "current restrictions" included the discretionary sanction(s) or not.
- It's conflicting clarification that I'd gotten between 2009 up until my 2012 unblock, even though the case itself doesn't mention whether the sanctions remain in force or not. But based on your clarification as well as the clarification I received over Discord (where I was advised by an arbitrator to bring my concerns here) and having read WP:ACDS, it sounds like the discussion here didn't actually revoke this topic ban and that this does remain in force under current policy.
- Either way, if there's a motion along these lines, I'd be okay with just the topic ban portion being superseded (even if the interaction ban remains in force thereafter). The main concern for me (if applicable) is to have the consensus here reflected/shown on the case itself. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- All of that answers that questions. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: Have noted the motion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- All of that answers that questions. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
Ryulong: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I've spent a little time looking, and I don't believe the sanctions imposed by Fritzpoll (noted here) have been rescinded. Equally, this appears to have been largely settled in 2015 by motion, with no further issues - so I would happily support a motion to vacate those sanctions. I'd like to hear other thoughts before proposing one though. WormTT(talk) 08:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and noting my response to the general question - yes, discretionary sanctions authorised by conduct probation remain in effect beyond the expiry of the probation. WormTT(talk) 08:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with WTT's assessment of the situation. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with Worm. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mythdon: going forward you would just be able to point anyone towards this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Worm that the sanctions are still in effect. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted
Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.
- Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support
- I believe we can remove this DS from 13 years ago, especially as all the other items from the case are cleared away. Specifically leaving the IBan in place as I generally don't like lifting them without a specific reason and Mythdon has stated they have no problem with it remaining. WormTT(talk) 13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think my first choice would have just been to archive this with the clarification above. But I'm willing to do this as a second choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No longer needed to prevent disruption. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No obvious issues since 2009 when the restrictions were put in place. --Izno (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 01:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maxim(talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Donald Albury 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- Arbitrator comments