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 22:04, 21 March 2014 editRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation: archiving← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators57,990 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
== Amendment request: Doncram ==


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Doncram}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>

]
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
]
# ]

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|SarekOfVulcan}} (initiator)
* {{userlinks|Doncram}}

; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
* by ] (]) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

; Information about amendment request

* ]
* I would like to have the ban removed

=== Statement by SarekOfVulcan ===
During my last RFA, the interaction ban was a reason for at least one of the opposes. It has been in place for a year. I would like to establish that this ban is no longer necessary before running again, so I ask that it be removed so I can work on establishing a track record.
:@{{u|Beeblebrox}} - over the past year, I've adapted to a much less confrontational style of editing. I'd like to be able to prove that the ban isn't needed anymore, but the only way to do that is to try it and find out. I'm sure there are more than enough people out there who will be happy to alert you if I'm mistaken. :-) --] 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:To clarify, I'm not asking for the ban to be removed so that I can interact with Doncram - just so that I can establish that I can avoid him without being forced to. --] 18:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:@{{u|Candleabracadabra}} - yes, I was asking for the ban to be removed, not to be changed to be one-sided. --] 02:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:@{{u|Carcharoth}} - That sounds like a good plan. --] 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:@{{u|Worm_That_Turned}} - oh, there were definitely other issues at play there. This was the only one that I couldn't affect by just changing my behavior. --] 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Doncram ===
No way, if it is up to me, unless it is part of a complete revocation of all restrictions against me, including a ban on my editing in NRHP area, and unless there is an explicit promise by SarekOfVulcan that he shall not follow and combat me, and that should be enforceable (i.e., in effect be a continuing interaction ban). The interaction ban was a result of arbitration begun by SarekOfVulcan, following long campaign of following my edits and combatting which dragged down my reputation, including multiple ANIs and AFDs and discussion at Jimbo Wales Talk page, and so on, and which I and some others perceived and still perceive as unjustified bullying, and the interaction ban was the only good outcome of the case. SarekOfVulcan has not communicated any meaningful apology for his actions, publicly or privately; his comnents in recent RFA were patheticly inadequate. I cannot see what he could say publicly or privately that would be adequate, either. --]]] 18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Candleabracadabra ===
I think that Doncram has done an impressive job of abiding by very biting restrictions on his editing. I urge the Arb committee to lift these sanctions so he can return to making positive contributions. The restrictions have been a loss to Misplaced Pages and his fellow editors. I oppose a one-sided removal of restrictions. As Doncram has noted, the problems were in large part a result of Sarek's combative behavior. Sarek promises that he has learned form past mistakes. Doncram has been punished long enough. And the NRHP editing environment has gotten worse without his presence, enormously useful contributions, and assistance to fellow editors. ] (]) 02:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:To clarify per Sarek's response, if you can avoid engagement with Doncram his editing restrictions as well as the interaction ban should be removed. If you hadn't pursued the conflict with him the ban on his editing and the ban on your interacting him would BOTH not be in place. You are requesting to remove your interaction ban so you can further your political aspirations on Wiki without moving to assist him in having his full editing priviledges restored. The loss of his ability to work on NRHP subjects has been very bad for his fellow editors and for Misplaced Pages. You should work to resolve that issue if you want your restrictions lifted and think you can be an effective administrator. Doncram masde enormous contributions to an area you r involvement in the dispute got him banned from. I don't think you should be allowed to "move on" without helping to end the dispute and helping to restore this hugely constructive editor to good standing in the article area where he did SO MUCH good. ] (]) 03:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Orlady ===
I tried to refrain from commenting here, but here I am, anyway. Seeing that it's been a full year since this arbcom case closed and both parties have apparently successfully abided by the mutual interaction ban, I think it would be timely to remove the imposed ban on mutual interaction and replace it with a voluntary agreement to avoid interaction. </br>
I call your attention to some prehistory of this case that I believe is relevant background on the interaction ban: . SarekOfVulcan started that discussion by expressing concern about several statements that Doncram had made about me that Sarek (and I) deemed to be serious personal attacks. That discussion led to a (temporary) voluntary moratorium on interactions (between Doncram and both Sarek and me). The voluntary moratorium was proposed by ] in a comment that stated, in part: {{tq|I really don't care to get into a "blame" or "fault" game, but the relationship between these good people has been very negative for more than a year. ... I don't see reacting with similar venom except toward Orlady and Sarek. Given the past history, any criticism he receives from Sarek and Orlady is received with extreme sensitivity.}} As I see it, the principal reason for avoiding interactions between Sarek and Doncram (and between Doncram and me) was and still is Doncram's "extreme sensitivity" to interactions with Sarek (and me) -- and his history of displaying that extreme sensitivity by reacting in an uncivil fashion. Arbcom's decision to apply an imposed interaction ban (in lieu of a voluntary "ban") between Sarek and Doncram seems to have been motivated mainly by the fact that Sarek had deliberately edit-warred, violating 3RR. Given the apparent nature of Doncram's perceptions of and reactions to Sarek (and what appears to be a more severely negative perception of and reaction to me), it is understandable that Doncram would oppose any relaxation of the ban. However, both of these editors are grownups who should be able to regulate their behavior and their emotions without a ban. If the year-long interaction ban was not long enough to allow Doncram to "get over" the effects of edit-warring that occurred in 2011, that does not bode well for any future requests he might make to vacate other restrictions that resulted from this case. </br>
I believe that both parties would abide by a voluntary agreement, and if they do so, the history of success possibly could help Doncram support a future request to review the other restrictions. --] (]) 16:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {yet another user} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Sarek, I have to say you haven't give us much to go on here. You want to establish that the ban is not necessary so you can run for RFA again. You wanting to be an admin again is not a reason for the committee to do anything. In other words, I would want to see something a little more compelling that "it's been a year" to reassure that the problems of the past would not happen again. ] (]) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
*For the interaction ban to be totally removed from both parties (as SoV is requesting) so that SoV can demonstrate that he is able to avoid commenting on Doncram, we need to assess whether the same applies to Doncram (whether Doncram can exercise sufficient self-control). If Doncram can demonstrate that they have reached a point where they can move forward as regards the interaction ban, then I would consider reducing this to both being informally 'bound over to hold the peace' with a full lifting a year later, otherwise I would only consider reducing this to a one-way interaction ban (with SoV informally agreeing not to interact with Doncram for another year - equivalent to being bound over to hold the peace). The difference is that breaches of an interaction ban can lead to a block. Breaches of an informal 'bound over to hold the peace' type arrangements would lead to re-imposition of the interaction ban (at WP:AE) rather than a block. The issue of Doncram's topic ban should be raised separately and filed by Doncram himself (if he wishes to do so) rather than raised by others (as above). ] (]) 08:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
*Years ago, while discussing an IBAN proposal on ANI, someone (can't remember who) wrote {{xt|this is an interaction ban, not an interaction blame}}, to emphasise that interaction bans do not necessarily presuppose misbehaviour on the part of either user, but rather they are imposed when two or more people have demonstrated that, for whatever reason, they are unable to interact in a productive fashion and their interactions usually result in a massive waste of time for everyone. For that reason, even if an interaction ban is lifted, it's generally a good idea for both parties to continue to avoid each other. <p>Also, since interaction bans are reciprocal in nature and are meant to protect both editors from the negative effects their interactions usually have, they should be lifted only if a. both editors agree or b. there is a very important reason to do so. The desire to run for adminship, for me, is not reason enough to override Doncram's objection. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 09:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
*It's annoying when you've written your thoughts down, only to have another arb edit conflict with you and say it better. Salvio. In summary, interaction bans are there to stop the disruption caused by two people interacting - there's so much history there that the interactions are never going to be productive. I really don't like one-way interaction bans for that reason, and agree to them only in exceptional circumstances. Having looked at the RfA in question, I don't believe the issue was the interaction ban, but rather how Sarek handled questions regarding the case. I do not see that lifting the interaction ban would be helpful, especially with Doncram's objection. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
*I agree with the above so far as the interaction ban removal is concerned; that being that if one party to the IBAN objects to lifting it, we would need very good cause to overrule that, and "I want to file an RfA" does not meet that burden. Sarek is not barred from filing an RfA by the sanction and could explain the ban in the candidate statement if so desired. Modification of any other sanction imposed as a discretionary sanction should go through the normal appeals process for DS. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
* Decline, per Seraphimblade et al. ] ]] 16:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

== Amendment request: Cirt and Jayen466 ==

'''Initiated by ''' &mdash; ''']''' (]) '''at''' 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Cirt and Jayen466}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# ]
# ]

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Cirt}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

* Remedies: ] and ]
* Details of desired modification: Narrow exception to engage in quality improvement projects for pages previously brought to quality levels, listed at ].

=== Statement by Cirt ===

#Hello, I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to consider a narrow modification to remedies (1) and (2) from the case '']''.
#I'd like to be able to maintain and improve further in quality ].
#In the interim since the closure of the case I've been placed under the mentorship of {{u|The Rambling Man}} and under this guidance, successfully taken a page , to ] quality. See: () and ()
#In addition I've focused on quality improvement projects to bring articles to higher levels of quality -- this has resulted successfully in three (3) ] promotions, seven (7) ] promotions, twenty (20) ] contributions, and one (1) ].
#Specifically I'd ask the Committee to amend the case '']'' by motion, so that I would be permitted to maintain articles I'd previously improved to high levels of quality, and embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at ], to further improve them in quality to ] or ].

Thanks for your consideration,

&mdash; ''']''' (]) 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|David Fuchs}} I'd of course welcome a full lifting of the restrictions. But I'd also most appreciate this narrow exception so I could both maintain articles I'd brought to ] in the past, and hopefully bring other articles I'd brought to ] to higher levels of quality. I'll let the Committee consider either one of those options. And thanks very much to {{u|Lquilter}} and {{u|Carrite}} for your most kind comments about my content work and quality improvement efforts. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, &mdash; ''']''' (]) 17:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Beeblebrox}} Thank you for recognizing that it's been several years. I'd appreciate any lessening of restrictions at all, full or otherwise, that would result in my being allowed to expand my quality improvement projects to include past ] and ] contributions. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Roger Davies}} I certainly didn't mean for that statement to apply to my ] contributions. I do feel badly that I had problems in those topics in the past. As for my Featured Content contributions -- I'm fortunate that my quality improvement projects that I've successfully helped improve to Featured quality are all due to collaborative cooperation and feedback from multiple contributors at multiple stages of review. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Carcharoth}} Thank you for mentioning my ] quality improvement effort on the film about ] and ], '']'' -- I found it most interesting that after all that discussion, the ]-day, itself, went by with more of a whimper than a bang, and didn't cause much controversy on the day of the Featuring of the article itself. My goals if the restrictions were removed would be to further improve in quality pages I'd previously already worked on at ]. These include several non-controversial articles, such as the articles I'd previously raised to ] quality: '']'', '']'', and '']'' -- I'd like to improve those to ] quality. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 10:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Carcharoth}} You mentioned '']'' -- so if you haven't noticed from my user talk page post about it, I'm currently working on a quality improvement project for the article on the book, '']''. Both the film and the book deal with the history of the word as related to ] and ]. So it's kind of the second ]-level quality improvement drive for me along a theme of freedom of speech and censorship related to the word. And second FA-level quality improvement drive on a book about freedom of speech -- as a follow-up to '']''. Thanks for your interest in my quality improvement projects, &mdash; ''']''' (]) 10:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Newyorkbrad}} Thank you for this specific request. Examples of specific articles I'd like to work on, that I can't now because of the restrictions, fall into two categories: (1) Articles I helped bring to ] that fall within the topic of new religious movements, and (2) Articles I helped bring to ] that I'd like to be permitted to improve to ]. A specific example of the former includes ] -- I noticed a bot left a note on the talk page back in 2011 that there were now dead-links in the article -- this has remained unaddressed by the community in the years since then. Specific examples of the latter include: '']'', '']'', and '']'' -- I'd like to improve these to ] quality. '']'', '']'', and '']'' are all novels by Scientology founder ] that I took to ] quality. Hopefully by working on further quality improvement on these articles, I can demonstrate to the community that I am capable of NPOV high-level quality improvement within the topic. Thank you, &mdash; ''']''' (]) 18:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Roger Davies}} Thank you for this specific request. (1) ]s I'd like to work on include the following: '']'', '']'', and '']'' (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). If the Committee wishes to expand this further, I would be more than honored in their trust in my motivation to perform quality improvement projects to bring additional ]s from ] to ]. (2) Per your request, I've notified {{u|Jayen466}} (). &mdash; ''']''' (]) 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Carcharoth}} Yes I nominated '']'' to ]. But I thought I mostly left others to speak on those issues at the TFAR discussion itself. I certainly was ''not'' trying to raise a "degree of controversy" from the featuring of the article on the Main Page -- I was merely trying to ''have'' a discussion and let the community decide whether the article should be featured on the Main Page. The community had that discussion. The community decided, per the assessment of the close at ], by a final tally of 52-25, to feature the article on the Main Page. I am actually quite ''glad'' that no significant controversy of any kind arose from the featuring of this article on the Main Page. And I would have been glad that a dialog was stimulated about ] and ] related to the documentary and its discussion of this taboo word. Please, {{u|Carcharoth}}, don't penalize me for my high-quality Featured Article work, outside the topic ban on another topic, bringing an article to FA on a subject of ]. I tried to comport myself with civility during the discussion which resulted in a majority of the Misplaced Pages community deciding for featuring the article on the Main Page. I don't think I should be penalized for utilizing community processes at multiple stages of review, including GA Review, Peer Review, FAC, and yes, ] as well. Thank you. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Carcharoth}} Thank you for those quality improvement suggestions, improving the "core" or "vital" type pages of ] and ] would indeed be most ambitious tasks. I don't think I've ever tried before to embark on a quality improvement project for a "core" or "vital" page on Misplaced Pages. I personally enjoy working on more focused topical articles, that way I know that in the course of my research, it is actually possible for me to read literally all of the secondary source coverage about a particular topic. That's what I did for my most successful ] drive for '']'', it's what I did for '']'', and it's what I've tried to do in the process of research for my most recent ] quality improvement project on ] and ], at '']''. {{u|Carcharoth}}, specific films and books as opposed to the general main "core" articles on a topic also have a defined beginning, middle, and end, so it's comforting to know that once my research is completed into certain articles they will be a near complete representation of scholarship on those topics. I certainly hope my ] contributions on ] could help serve as models for quality improvement for other articles on the topic. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Carcharoth}} Maybe we should ask {{u|David Fuchs}} to improve the article ] to FA status instead of '']''. Personally I commend {{u|David Fuchs}} for ''all'' of his ] quality contributions. If you look at ], it doesn't look like {{u|David Fuchs}} has contributed FAs on "core" or "vital" articles like ], itself. I think this is for similar reasons as I described, above. That is, it's easier to read the majority of secondary source coverage about a niche topic rather than a wider topic, and then be assured that a quality improvement project on that article covers the majority of all of the secondary source coverage on that topic. I'm grateful for the Wikipedians at ] that have improved core vital articles on Misplaced Pages, but also quite thankful for those at ] that have improved to FA status more niche articles as well. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|AGK}} I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that ]s I'd like to work on include the following: '']'', '']'', and '']'' (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 01:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Seraphimblade}} I understand your concern that you feel the request was problematic. In response to other Arbitrators' comments, I stated specifically that ]s I'd like to work on include the following: '']'', '']'', and '']'' (novels by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). Hopefully the more specific request makes things less problematic to consider. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Guerillero}} / {{Ping|In actu}} I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope I can demonstrate to you and to the community my desire to improve articles to ] quality within the topic. I'd like the Committee to consider allowing me to embark upon quality improvement projects for ]s including: '']'', '']'', and '']''. I previously successfully took these articles to ] quality, and I'd like to have a chance to further improve them in quality further. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===
* I didn't follow this original issue, but came upon it while working with Cirt on intellectual freedom issues over the last few months. A few comments:

One, I'm not sure why the original order seems so unbalanced: Cirt's alleged misdeeds seem relatively minor, and characterized more by sloppiness than ill-will. But they got two perpetual bans on content editing -- one very, very broad! all political-related bio articles -- AND status change (de-sysopping). The other editor's alleged misdeeds I personally find more troublesome, and there was very little remedy attached -- just a warning. Both users appropriately were restricted from interacting with each other.

Two, the original order is overbroad -- the restrictions on Cirt are not time-limited, and they're really broad.

Whatever the reasoning behind the original order, I suggest that in light of the time passed, and its breadth, that it should be reconsidered. Cirt is, in my experience, an exemplary editor, who has contributed a lot to Misplaced Pages content. From conceiving of the Intellectual freedom portal, bringing it to fruition, advancing it to "Featured" status -- and doing the same with a lot of content ''in'' that section, Cirt has been an awesome (in the sense of inspiring awe, rather than in the Bill-and-Ted sense) contributor to Misplaced Pages.

Cirt just asks for a minor modification. I have no idea why. The content restrictions should be completely lifted, since they should have been time-limited in the first place. The desysopping is already time limited, because it can be re-added with a request. User interaction orders could reasonably be perpetual, and I express no opinion about the ones at issue here.

] (]) 15:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

* PS: An Arb asked for an example of articles Cirt can't work on. ], a First Amendment lawyer and scholar, is one such example. I came to this discussion because in seeking additional eyes on the Marjorie Heins article, I was told by Cirt that he couldn't work on that article because of the content restriction. So that's my perspective -- Cirt is doing really good work on the First Amendment / free expression sections, but can't work on the biographies in that section. In looking at the original remedies, it seemed obvious that (a) the remedy was really broad -- over-broad in my view; and (b) it should have been time-limited to begin with. --] (]) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Carrite ===

I urge that the editing restrictions against Cirt be totally lifted. I think the original action against him was a vendetta, that the matter was decided wrongly, and the resulting punishment mindbogglingly draconian. Cirt has lost tools and done his time in the penalty box, time to return him to valuable content work. ] (]) 02:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement The Devil's Advocate ===
This request should either be for a full lifting of the topic ban or identify specific topic areas where he wishes to resume editing. Any granting of the request as framed would be little different from granting Cirt the ability to resume editing in all the areas where his prior activities were a problem. If Arbs feel he can be trusted with those articles then they should presume he can be trusted with any articles in those topic areas. Should they feel he cannot be trusted with those articles then it should be a question of whether he can be trusted with some topic areas he is banned from or none.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Guerillero ===
I don't see any compelling reason to allow Cirt to touch anything related to Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard unless we want to be back here in a year or two you yet another RfArb. --] &#124; ] 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {yet another user} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*At first blush I'd agree with TDA that drawing a bunch of narrow exceptions seems like hairsplitting at this point; either the restrictions en bloc should be appealed or single, article-by-article exceptions granted. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
*That's my impression as well. It's been several years. If the restrictions are no longer needed for some articles they should no longer be needed at all and Cirt should be able to keep himself out of trouble. I'm not 100% convinced that is the case just yet but I don't think lots of little modifications to old sanctions is a route we want to go down at all. ] (]) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
* I'm getting a sense of deja-vu here, I'm afraid. Five or six years ago, there were serious issues with your editing. You declared these fixed as a result of mentorship by Durova. While it is true that you did much featured work, it is also true that these included many articles on books and film which were critical of Scientology. In these, by your own admission and against policy, you placed and followed poor sourcing practices. If these now need work, it is probably better, for the foreseeable future at least, if that work were done by someone else. I cannot support this request. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 23:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:*Thanks, Cirt, for providing the summary Brad requested. May I trouble you to produce a complete list of prohibited articles that you'd like to work on, with a short descriptor for each indicating which part of your restriction it's covered by? For example ] (Scientology); ] (Scientology; L Ron Hubbard novel); etc. Incidentally, have you yet notified {{u|Jayen466}} (the other party to the case) about this request? &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 18:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
*Cirt, one of the things I look for in people coming off topic bans or site bans is an ability to work quietly and avoid areas that may be potentially controversial. In that vein, I noticed your comments relating to the request to feature ] (one of the articles you worked on) on the Main Page (] - after that rather heated discussion, this article ran on the main page on 1 March). If the restrictions were removed, would you actively seek out potentially controversial areas (and engage in discussions about the response to the article within Misplaced Pages and in external media), or would you make a conscious decision to edit quietly? ] (]) 08:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
**Cirt, I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at with my comment. When I talk about someone editing quietly, improving articles and putting them through review processes can be done relatively quietly. Nominating an article to appear as TFA is different again, and draws more attention to a topic, and attention of a different sort. What I'm saying is that I'm wary when I see an editor topic-banned in one area nominating their work on other articles at TFA and at the same time taking an interest in the degree of controversy that may arise from the featuring of those articles on the main page. It feels a bit too much like part of the motivation was to see what the reaction would be (I suspect the effects of filters and blocking software may have skewed any reaction). I would prefer to see an editor that was topic-banned finding a quiet area to edit in that they have a moderate interest in and can be dispassionate about, rather than returning to areas they are passionate about. Hence I would be reluctant to grant the request as it stands. ] (]) 00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
***Cirt, one way to stimulate a dialog about ] and ] would be to work to get those two articles to featured article status. That is much harder than working on narrow, specific topics. But it also gives people a wider view of the topic area, rather than focusing the topic through a specific film or book (such as the one you mention: '']''). Anyway, I'll leave it there, as the focus of this amendment request should be elsewhere (if you want to follow-up on my talk page, feel free). Hopefully we will have an update for you in a few days time. ] (]) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
*My gut instinct is to be hesitant about a removal of editing restrictions since, as Roger says, we've all been here before. Fool me once, etc, etc. The description of the scope of the proposed relaxation, while marketed as a limited relaxation, is not that far away from blanket removal; Cirt says he wants to "embark on quality improvement projects for pages listed at ]", which is a very long list, containing many articles in subject areas that have previously been a source of problem and conflict. And, as David Fuchs says, it's probably better to either grant article-by-article exceptions, or just remove the restrictions.<p>Remedy 2 (the BLP restriction) specifically says "''if Cirt conforms his future editing to applicable policies and the principles set forth in this decision and ], he may submit a request for amendment after one year from the date of this decision seeking a relaxation of this restriction''". It's been 2 1/2 years. It's time to either relax it, or admit that suggesting how it could be relaxed was a mistake.<p>After some thought, I believe I support revising Remedy 1 so that it only prohibits editing articles related to Scientology, and undoing Remedy 2. I would suggest instead something more tailored to the Finding of Fact, such as "Cirt is prohibited from placing undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs, and from following poor sourcing practices. If he is determined to be doing so at ], original Remedies 1 and 2 can be reimposed by any uninvolved admin." Or something to that effect. --] (]) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
*Cirt, can you please give examples of specific articles you'd like to work on, that you can't now because of the restrictions? ] (]) 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
*The drama and trouble caused by a restriction tends to rise in proportion to the number of exceptions and clauses added to it, especially when they are added some time later. Also, I find the framing of this request unsatisfactory. What, for example, exactly are the articles "previously improved to high levels of quality"? That list, impressively long though it may be, is not iterated here. More worryingly still, "Pages listed at User:Cirt/Contributions" is a list with contents determined by the sanctioned editor himself. We cannot have a topic ban with a scope decided by its subject. I would deny this request. ] ]] 00:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
*Given the history here, I would for the moment prefer to see Cirt request to edit one or a few specific articles with plans to improve them, and might be disposed toward granting such a request. I don't see the request for a complex modification as workable, though, and am not prepared at this time to support lifting the restriction wholesale. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:02, 19 March 2014 (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: