Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:40, 29 August 2009 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits Motion to amend remedy 9 of Obama articles ("ChildofMidnight topic banned") carried; deleting discussion section and implementing decision.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,044 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}
== Request for clarification: ] ==


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
*{{Admin|John Carter}} (initiator)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
*{{userlinks|Ohconfucius}}
]
*{{userlinks|Dilip rajeev}}
]
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

;Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request:
*
*

=== Statement by John Carter ===
Requesting clarification of whether or not the terms of probation on Falun Gong related articles allow for uninvolved administrators to place a block or ban on the basis of the terms as is currently being requested at ]. I'm not sure if I have to notify all the other parties who have already commented on the request for enforcement there, but will do so if such is requested. ] (]) 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ohconfucius ===
I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a recently here at AE for just such a violation. ] (]) 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*Please also note that I have amended the sanction requested from indefinite ban from wikipedia to indefinite topic ban from all Falun Gong related articles and talkpages, construed widely. ] (]) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sandstein ===
I was the one to first raise this question, and refer the Committee to my comments at ]. I would also appreciate a clarification of this point. In reply to Ohconfucius, any previous sanctions do not by themselves constitute sufficient authority for new sanctions; it may well be that these previous sanctions were themselves unauthorized under the remedy. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Vassyana ===
This has been generally treated as a standard article probation with an ''additional'' option for ArbCom review. Please note the examples above and ], as well as ]. If this is inccrrect, I expect that ArbCom, individual arbitrators, or enforcement admins would have long-ago corrected the misuse of the remedy. A clarification to explicitly state the status quo handling of the remedy should not be necessary. It should suffice for arbitrators to uphold the standard interpretation, as they are doing in Olaf Stephanos' specific case. If it is really considered necessary to deal with this by way of formal clarification, then please resolve the matter by motion ASAP to prevent this from becoming an in for all previous and standing sanctions to be wikilawyered. --] (]) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
* Just noting that John Carter has requested Kirill's input, per NYB's request.

=== Statement by Kirill Lokshin ===
The intent of the remedy, as written, was to ''both'' (a) place the article on standard article probation, which allows administrators to enact topic bans on their own discretion and (b) provide an explicit provision for further review should the probation prove unsuccessful. I see no reason to believe that any of the arbitrators voting for this remedy believed its meaning to be different from this. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*I'd appreciate if someone could ask Kirill Lokshin for his thoughts on this request, as he drafted the decision. Thanks. ] (]) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] (2) ==

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|Bigtimepeace}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|ChildofMidnight}}
*{{userlinks|Scjessey}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Bigtimepeace ===

The issue here is a straightforward one which can be corrected quite quickly. The committee recently ] several of their remedies in the Obama case such that 1RR restrictions on several editors applied not to all articles but rather only to Obama-related articles. The problem is that two editors, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey, are also under a topic ban for these articles. The revised remedies now seem to conflict with that as worded. For example remedy ] says that "ChildofMidnight is limited to one revert per page per week on Obama-related articles" for one year, except that for the next few months C of M is not supposed to be editing Obama articles ''at all''. This was apparently cause for confusion as discussed on ChildofMidnight's talk page ].

ChildofMidnight now understands that the topic ban is still in effect, but it would probably be better if the language were clarified, or if an Arb simply made a statement here about how to interpret the remedies in question. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:Fayssal, I'm sorry but I find it highly illogical that the 1 year, 1RR restriction begins ''after'' the topic ban has ended. I don't think that can be true. For one thing, as Scjessey pointed out, the proposed decision specifically said "To run concurrently" (or at least that's what Wizardman said). There's no sign in the final decision that that had changed.

:Additionally, we need to bear in mind that the original 1RR restriction (for Scjessey, ChildofMidnight, Sceptre, Grundle2600, and Stevertigo) was for ''all articles''. Three of those editors were not hit with a topic ban, and obviously their restriction began immediately (indeed the whole reason that the original remedies were superseded was that one of the editors complained that the restriction was too harsh, so clearly it was in effect at that time and the committee treated it as such when it superseded the restriction with a narrower alternative). As far as I know there was no comment anywhere from the Arbs that the 1RR restrictions for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight were different, or that they were beginning in 6 months (again, that would have been bizarre, as the 1RR was not just for Obama articles, but rather for everything&mdash;why would it have not started right away and run alongside the topic ban?).

:Additionally, despite what you are saying now, clearly all those in question ''believed'' they were under a 1RR restriction and I think myself and all other admins familiar with the case believed that as well. So they've already been abiding by that, but now you seem to be saying they have not even started serving their time (so to speak). That's a problem.

:Finally, the whole point of switching from 1RR for everything to 1RR for Obama only was, I assume, to relax the original sanctions. While this has happened for the three editors who were not topic banned (they are not 1RR limited in non-Obama topics), your suggestion that the 1RR restriction does not go into effect for Scjessey and ChildofMidnight for 6 months has the effect of ''strengthening'' their sanctions. The original remedies clearly sanctioned them for a year, but now they have a year and a half of sanctions, which strikes me as rather excessive.

:So I'm wondering if Fayssal maybe just got it wrong here. Regardless, the situation is in far more need of clarification than I thought. The committee needs to be much more clear about where we stand, and at this point that may actually require a further amending of the remedies. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by ChildofMidnight ===
As I seem to have been the only one who was confused, I don't think a clarification is needed. I'm straightened out now. Frankly, I hadn't realized Scjessey and I were the only ones topic banned and had, indeed, read the new remedy as allowing me to edit Obama articles as long as I limited myself to 1 revert a week and discussed any reverts (an proposal that seems pretty reasonable). That would be a more appropriate remedy, but I see that the other "remedy" is still in place, and I'm sure that any requests for modification would need to be filed in a different venue and queue. Anyway, I don't see any need for action or clarification. If the committee believes a 6 month ban serves a purpose aside from benefitting the censors and POV pushers camped out on those articles and the harassing stalkers who continue to use any sanction against me at every possible opportunity, then that's their priviledge. ] (]) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:I disagree with Fayssal's reading of the sanctions. 18 months? But whatever. The various policy violations engaged in by arbcom, their punitive punishments, and their lack of willingness to work collaboratively with editors to solve problems speaks for itself. I have noticed some improvement in response times which is nice. We waited months to get the monstrosity of a verdict you rendered in this case, and of course it's done nothing but perpetuate and aid the continued animosity, hostility, and abuse dished out on the Obama articles. But you guys are the captains of this ship, so who am I to yell ICEBEEEEERG!!! ] (]) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::The day there'd be no ANI reports and all what comes with regarding a conflict then I'd be able to accept an appeal to reduce the restrictions' period. We do that all the time. From the part of ArbCom, that only necessitates a round of discussions and a motion being drafted. From the part of the concerned parties, that needs dedication; more work. The periods are less relevant ChildofMidnight. Everything can be amended. Now, it is up to the parties to show ArbCom some progress. It is up to you to avoid the iceberg, we are ''not'' captains... you are the captains as we have just given you the ship and asked you to give it back to us without any damage. The sooner, the better. -- ] - <small>]</small> 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:::That is utter bullshit and shows you have not the slightest understanding of the nature of how POV pushers, stalkers, and harassment works on Misplaced Pages. The day arbcom assists good faith content contributors like Giano, Malleus, Badagnani, myself and others, instead of aiding and abetting those who abuse the noticeboards to disrupt our work, will be a true triumph for Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if you have any questions. ] (]) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Comment by uninvolved Mythdon ===

It's indeed ''very clear'' that the topic ban on ChildOfMidnight is still in place. The topic ban, from my calculations, lasts until approximately December 21, 2009.

I really actually have no involvement in this honestly, and have not reviewed the evidence of this case, and do not edit Obama articles, but without regard to that, anyone reading the remedy will know that the topic ban is still in place.

While it's clear that the topic ban is still in effect, my assumption is that the 1RR restriction on ChildOfMidnight with respect to the Obama articles takes effect once the topic ban ends. Is this true? If so, it would make sense to reword the restriction to that effect. The same clarification should also be done for Scjessy's 1RR restriction, and if it's the same case with Scjessy, a rewording will be needed for that 1RR too. —<font color="green">]</font> (<font color="teal">]</font> • <font color="teal">]</font>) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Question (on unrelated issue) by Wikidemon ===
May we please have a clarification of the new remedy duration as well? The original 1RR per week restrictions were one year from the date they were issued, June 21 2009. The modifications also mention a period of 1 year, but are dated August 2, 2009. I would assume the intent was not to reset the end dates, i.e. the new remedy applies until June 21, 2010, not August 2, 2010. To avoid conclusion it may help to make that clear. I mentioned this to ] as clerk but have not heard back. Thanks, ] (]) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:Per FayssalF, below, the 1 year 1RR periods run successively rather than concurrently with the 6 year topic bans, a possibility I had overlooked. If that is indeed the intent, maybe it is best to add some text like "...after the conclusion of the foregoing sanction". - ] (]) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

===Statement by Scjessey===
I am a little confused. It was my understanding that the sanctions were to run concurrently (as indicated in the ] that was written by ]). I do not recall anyone suggesting that these sanctions were to run successively. If this is indeed the case, it seems an extraordinarily harsh measure (even ''with'' the recent amendment). -- ] (]) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:The set of the articles in question belongs to the BLP area and we all know how that specific area is sensitive. That said, —and for now— you can still consider my view as that of an individual arbitrator; we are still waiting for the views of my colleagues. -- ] - <small>]</small> 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tarc ===
Checking in from ] even tho I was trying to avoid teh internets. Ah well. Anyways, I'd thought this all was pretty crystal-clear, as several users were given 2 prohibitions;
: 1) a 6-month ban from Obama-related topics and talk pages
: 2) a 1RR/page/week project-wide.

Number 2 was rescinded on appeal for all, leaving only #1. This is now the 4th time that one, ChildofMidnight, has violated Prohibition #1. ] (]) 01:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Allstarecho ===
Whatever is decided here, ] should be updated to reflect such. This would help with any confusion.

=== Comment by Ncmvocalist ===
Why not review at a more appropriate time - specifically, 6 months after the topic ban
has expired? Whether there is a need, or not, for the extra 6 months of 1RR to continue
in the area of conflict, can be clarified at that time (when it's more relevant). I don't
understand why there is a sense of urgency to know now, when it's possible that it (or a harsher or a less restrictive sanction) potentially may be re-imposed closer to that time anyway. Alternatively, closer to that time, there might not be a need for it. On the ever-growing list of things-to-do for ArbCom, this probably is one of the simplest ones to answer: no action until 5 months after topic ban has expired. ] (]) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* If merging remedy 9 and 9.2 together (also 10 and 10.2) would help then I'd not have a problem. Whatever is the case, ChildofMidnight and Scjessey are both topic banned from all Obama-related articles for 6 months. After the 6 months are expired then both users are restricted to not revert more than 1 revert per week for a whole year. Both restrictions cover 18 months. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
* To answer the question on the dates, they're not reset, so they still started at the end of the case. On this one, I doubled checked and actually wrote it as meaning to be concurrent, i.e. topic ban and 1rr 6 months (in case the former was lifted), then 1rr the next six months. I will defer to my fellow arbs on how they interpreted this restriction though. ] 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
* While I did not actively participate in this case, I have since reviewed it in detail. It is the usual practice that remedies run concurrently, not serially, unless specified in the remedy itself. I concur with Wizardman's interpretation. ] (]) 06:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
*I agree that the time period would be concurrent, with the 1rr happening for 6 more months after the topic ban ends. ]] 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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).

Submitting a 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
127128129130131

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: