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 17:59, 3 October 2014 editTimotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion: cmt.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:36, 4 January 2025 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,542 edits hatting as withdrawn (user:SimpleSubCubicGraph
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
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}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
== Clarification request: Pseudoscience ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 ==
;Case or decision affected:
{{hat|Withdrawn. <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:{{RFARlinks|Pseudoscience}}
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
:{{RFARlinks|Armenia-Azerbaijan_3}}
*{{userlinks|Squeamish Ossifrage}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Sandstein}}


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
=== Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage ===
#
My apologies in advance if I've botched the maze of templates involved with this process in any way.


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


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
It is my assumption that this is a distinction without a difference, and that the sanctions apply regardless of namespace. I inquired with ] to ensure I was correct in my reading, as he appears to be among the more active arbitration enforcement administrators. He suggested that I refer the issue here for more explicit clarification. And so, I have.
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|SimpleSubCubicGraph}} (initiator)


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


; Information about amendment request
=== Statement by {other user} ===
*
:*I request a modification to the probation period, and want the probation to end immediately and for all pages involving Armenia-Azerbaijan, except the ] wars to be downgraded to Autoconfirmed Protection.


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


=== Statement by SimpleSubCubicGraph ===
=== Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
A recent statement was made by Armenia offering condolences to Azerbaijan which has almost never happened, I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages blanket protection of Extended Confirmed should be lowered to Autoconfirmed protection, with the exception of the wars between the two sovereign nations. Additionally, relations are getting better between the two countries. For nearly 30 years, relations were rock bottom, diplomats were not found in Azerbaijan nor Armenia and tensions were at an all time high. However ever since the 2020 war the two nations have started to make amends. This first started with the peace deal ending the war between the two nations. Turkey whom is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan has started to resume direct flights from ], the capital of Armenia and ], the largest city in the Republic of Turkiye. In 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan entered into extensive bilateral negotiations as well as a prisoner exchange between the two countries, and Armenia supported Azerbaijan for being the host of the UN climate change forum. Finally, last year the two countries solved many border issues and created a transport route between the two countries which is a symbol of peace. The two nations are much better off now than they were just 4 years ago and can be seen as having a cooperative/reconciling attitude. That is why I propose an amendment that will immediately downgrade all protections (from ] to ]) for all Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages.
*Your interpretation is correct. Per ], the rules that are to be applied to determine whether an edit is covered by discretionary sanctions are the ones outlined in the topic ban policy, i.e. ]. As a result, {{xt|unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic}}. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:@] then how would I appeal or ask the community to lift sanctions over Armenia-Azerbaijan ] (]) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) <small>{{clerk note}} Moved to own section <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
**Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear. <p>Looking at previous cases, I see "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with X", "pages related to the Y, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions" and "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Z"; however, I don't doubt that, irrespective of the different formulations, all these mean the same thing: all edits concerning X, Y and Z are subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of namespace.<p>Then again, we could pass a motion amending all provisions authorising DS to read "for all edits" rather than "all articles or pages", but, if I can be honest, this looks like a waste of time to me. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
*I agree with Salvio. By "clearly and umambiguously specified otherwise", I'd expect some sort of phrase such as "but not in project space" or "for articles '''only'''". It's pretty clear to me that the discretionary sanctions extend outside of article space. I'm happy to support a motion, but I don't see that it's necessary. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
* The intention was to cover everything related regardless of namespace. I think a motion to clarify this won't hurt. ] (]) 17:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
----


:@] going off what voorts said, can this suggestion be repealed/deleted? ] (]) 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== Clarification request: Sexology (Neotarf) ==
<!-- As well as above, please also replace "CASE/DECISION" in the Arbitrators' section below, then remove this message. -->
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


=== Statement by voorts ===
;Case or decision affected:
{{ping|SimpleSubCubicGraph}} ECP-only edits were imposed by the community as a ], not by ArbCom. ArbCom does not have jurisdiction here. That said, whether or not Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are warming, the community has imposed sanctions here (and ArbCom has designated this area as a contentious topic) because of disruption in the topic area by editors. I highly doubt that you'd get the community to agree to change this rule, given that editors are still routinely sanctioned under this GS. See ]. ] (]/]) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{RFARlinks|Sexology}}
: {{ping|SimpleSubCubicGraph}} There is. You can read ] for more information. However, as I said, there is almost zero chance that you will get this sanction to be removed. You should be patient and wait to get 500 edits and EC. ] (]/]) 00:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:
<!-- If seeking clarification related to a case replace "Example" with the case name. If seeking clarification related to a decision (such as a motion) include the link or specific decision. If none of these apply delete this and preceding lines. -->


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
*{{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}} (initiator)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
*{{userlinks|Neotarf}} ] notified


=== Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Clerk notes ===
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator.
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
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.
-->


=== Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket ===
*
] Discretional sanctions specifically apply to self identifying transgender people, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered woman and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Also if you look at the issue of ] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments ] identical to what was stated on ANI. The views at Arb Enforcement is that this is not article related therefore unactionable, I believe that the remedy includes treatment of "any" transgender person. Does this remedy only apply to BLP articles or editors as well? ] (]) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:I sent this in an email to NYB which was only part of my questions but I want to post this here too ] under the subheading "Defamatory Terms" it reads "Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting." Letting go the fact that this decision is closed ) which I will not pursue further I think a clarification is warranted for future reference. Apparently the drama meter is up right now and a big reason is because of the dispute of woman rights, civility and maintaining editing atmosphere that is not demeaning. I am quite sure ] would agree on those principles. I also think that if it's established that the remarks are offensive Neotarf will refrain from making them but let's at least agree it's demeaning to a transgender person, the question is does this remedy only apply for articles or does it apply to other editors. ] (]) 09:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Carolmooredc ===
Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought ] regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well. The relevant passage is:
::The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.

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

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

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

=== Sexology (Neotarf): Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*The context here is a closed AE thread in which the AE administrators concluded that (1) the discretionary sanctions authorized in the ''Sexology'' and ''Manning'' cases apply only to articles, not to noticeboard discussions, and (2) the single comment in question did not warrant action in any event. I perceive the second of these conclusions as clearly correct, and hence need not reach the first. This is not a useful request. ] (]) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
*I see nothing requiring further action, broadly per Newyorkbrad. ] ]] 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
*I see no reason to disagree with the outcome of the ]. No action required here. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
*{{xt|Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought ] regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well}}, well count me in among those who thought that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 00:36, 4 January 2025

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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 none (orig. case) 4 January 2025
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

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan_3

Withdrawn. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by SimpleSubCubicGraph at 18:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Armenia-Azerbaijan_3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Olympian ban on Armenia-Azerbaijan


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


Information about amendment request
  • I request a modification to the probation period, and want the probation to end immediately and for all pages involving Armenia-Azerbaijan, except the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict wars to be downgraded to Autoconfirmed Protection.


Statement by SimpleSubCubicGraph

A recent statement was made by Armenia offering condolences to Azerbaijan which has almost never happened, I believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan related pages blanket protection of Extended Confirmed should be lowered to Autoconfirmed protection, with the exception of the wars between the two sovereign nations. Additionally, relations are getting better between the two countries. For nearly 30 years, relations were rock bottom, diplomats were not found in Azerbaijan nor Armenia and tensions were at an all time high. However ever since the 2020 war the two nations have started to make amends. This first started with the peace deal ending the war between the two nations. Turkey whom is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan has started to resume direct flights from Yerevan, the capital of Armenia and Istanbul, the largest city in the Republic of Turkiye. In 2023, Armenia and Azerbaijan entered into extensive bilateral negotiations as well as a prisoner exchange between the two countries, and Armenia supported Azerbaijan for being the host of the UN climate change forum. Finally, last year the two countries solved many border issues and created a transport route between the two countries which is a symbol of peace. The two nations are much better off now than they were just 4 years ago and can be seen as having a cooperative/reconciling attitude. That is why I propose an amendment that will immediately downgrade all protections (from ECP to ACP) for all Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages.

@Voorts then how would I appeal or ask the community to lift sanctions over Armenia-Azerbaijan SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)  Clerk note: Moved to own section HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Houseblaster going off what voorts said, can this suggestion be repealed/deleted? SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by voorts

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: ECP-only edits were imposed by the community as a general sanction, not by ArbCom. ArbCom does not have jurisdiction here. That said, whether or not Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are warming, the community has imposed sanctions here (and ArbCom has designated this area as a contentious topic) because of disruption in the topic area by editors. I highly doubt that you'd get the community to agree to change this rule, given that editors are still routinely sanctioned under this GS. See WP:GS/AA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimpleSubCubicGraph: There is. You can read WP:GS for more information. However, as I said, there is almost zero chance that you will get this sanction to be removed. You should be patient and wait to get 500 edits and EC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Clerk notes

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan_3: Arbitrator views and discussion

Categories: