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 22:01, 16 February 2012 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: fix sig← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,013 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|]}} =
⚫ <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}
== Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> '''at''' 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


<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}}
*{{userlinks|Steven Zhang}} (initiator)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>

]
=== Statement by Steven Zhang ===
]
This is more a clarification on ]. It might seem relatively obvious what the answer to my question is, but the remedy states:
''"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to abortion, broadly construed."''
I compare this with the closure of the '']'' case, where the sanction states:
''"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted."''

I was reading over the final decision for the Muhammad case today, in particular the ] on deciding what to do regarding the images, and noticed this sentence: "Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision".

Now, as the committee is well aware, a ] (see ]) has been set up. So, I suppose my question is rather simple. Will administrators have the authority to ban users from the discussion in events of disruption under the discretionary sanctions as noted in the Abortion case? It would seem logical to me, but the committee may feel differently. I haven't notified the parties of the case (I feel it's a simple clarification for mainly my benefit) but am happy to do so if required. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

*@ArbCom, I am probably being a bit pedantic here, but from readings of past cases, the scope of where discretionary sanctions and topic bans apply are normally clearly defined, for example in the '']'' ("related articles and their talk page"), '']'' ("The topic covered by the article currently located at...") and the Muhammad case (linked above) are a few examples. I personally don't mind, but it might be better to be explicit as to the scope of discretionary sanctions in this situation? <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 00:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
*@Jclemens, I was probably being just a bit anal about my reading of it, perhaps that's how I picked up on it. But knowing the climate of topics like these, I figured it's best to be explicit just in case we have any wikilawyering over the remedy in future ("the remedy says articles only, not X areas") @Roger, sounds good. I'll keep my eye on this page. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Whenaxis ===
Greetings Arbitration Committee. I, too, would like to clarify if administrators will have the authority to ban users from the discussion when disruptive editing occurs. I think the Arbitration Committee should provide this authority to administrators because any uncivil comment can detract from the productivity of the community discussion. At this time, the ] encompasses ''articles'' relating to Abortion, as suggested by Steven above, I think it should encompass the discussion and ''all pages'' relating to Abortion. Thanks, <font size="2"><font face="BankGothic Md Bt">''''']''''' <small>]&nbsp;<span style="font-weight:bold;">&middot;</span>&#32;]</small></font></font> 21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
:<small>Moved per NW's request and redacted to make sense.</small> As you'll see at ], this is a "problem" (not really) for more than just this case. They can really be fixed by a simple copy edit though, as DS have been applied to all pages in a topic area since forever. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Seems like a fairly common-sense thing to do to me, but I'm still recused on this one. ] 22:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
* Yes, the admins can apply blocks or bans as needed to editors if they disrupt the discussion. ] (]) 23:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
* Just as discretionary sanctions that apply to ''articles'' also apply to the talk page, so too does the Abortion discretionary provision apply to community discussion related to the article. ] ]] 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
:* If my colleagues are minded to explicitly resolve that we consider RFCs to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions for the associated article, then I would be happy to support or propose a motion to that effect. However, in my view the scope is self-evident, and the opinions given in this clarification are sufficient as confirmation. ] ]] 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
*Yes, especially as disruptive talkpage editing was a feature of the problems leading to the case. ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
*Discretionary sanctions were fully intended to apply to the discussions prompted by the remedy passed in this case. My apologies if the wording didn't make that sufficiently clear. ] (]) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
*To avoid doubt I would support changing it to read "for all pages related to abortion". ''']''' ''']''' 09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
*Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. Yes, it seems to be a slip rather an intention and this has been confirmed by Jclemens above. As we seem to be unanimous, best is probably to handle this as a copy-edit instead of by formal motion, and I will do so in twelve or so hours time (unless anyone objects, of course). &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 10:14, 16 February 2012 (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: