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 12:09, 27 December 2014 editSalvio giuliano (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators49,147 edits →Climate change (WP:ARBCC): Arbitrator views and discussion: aye← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,050 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
(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>
== Amendment request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}

<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
]

]
;Case or decision affected:
:]

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Fram}}

=== Statement by Richard Arthur Norton ===
I am currently following Misplaced Pages rules on attributing source material and have been creating articles in my user space at ] as examples. I would like my restrictions on 1) creating new content in Misplaced Pages space lifted and 2) on adding images to dead people's profiles under fair use lifted.

I have gone over my earliest edits to attribute the source material used and rewrite blocks of text where the writing was insufficiently altered. I have not found any additional ones and no one has brought to me any further examples that need work. Any additional ones found in the future will be fixed right away. I would like to continue adding images to dead people's biographies under fair use. I will use the most current template and make sure it is filled-in as completely as possible.

=== Statement by Carrite ===

Richard Norton is celebrating 10 years as a Wikipedian tomorrow. He stands as #124 on the Most Edits list with over 153,000 edits (he is a plain editor, not someone with a bot-inflated count). He is #96 on the new starts list, with more than 3,000 articles started. Of these, a very small fraction, mostly c. 2005-2007 were problematic — granted that a very small fraction of a huge number is significant. Regardless, he now understands copyright rules with respect to WP content. No one has complained of copyvio in his work of the past year or two... Richard has a huge backlog of new material to be moved to mainspace, the current system of proxy-editing his starts is not working. He will be under very close scrutiny for any future copyright violation, rest assured. The current restriction upon him (which was ill-advised in the first place) does nothing but fetter his work and should be ended. ] (]) 02:56, 27 December 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).''

=== Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Awaiting any further statements. Statements should focus on whether the concerns about Mr. Norton's editing that prompted us to impose the restriction have been addressed in his more recent editing. ] (]) 04:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
*I'd like to hear some more statements before making any decision (which may not happen before disappear off the committee), but in principle, I'd certainly have no issue with easing these restrictions to allow Richard to show he's able to work without causing issues especially if he has put right what's been pointed out. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
*I'm amenable to applying the standard "parole" (i.e. we lift the sanction, but for the first year it may be reimposed by any uninvolved admin, in the event of further problems). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Infoboxes ==
'''Initiated by ''' <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) '''at''' 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Infoboxes}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# ]

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

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

; Information about amendment request

* ]
* Add "for articles" to the end of the remedy.

=== Statement by Callanecc ===

I know it's another Infoboxes request, but bear with me, this one will (hopefully) be easy and uncontroversial.

There was an ] filed which requested enforcement against Pigsonthewing requesting and discussing deletion of infoboxes at ]. The consensus among admins was there was an implication that the restriction applies to articles only however as this is not clear in the provision there would continue to be misunderstanding and possibly further AE requests closed without action being possible. So this request (as an uninvolved admin carrying out the close of the request) is for a motion with the following wording:

] of the ] arbitration case is amended to read:

{{ivmbox|Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes from articles.}}

=== Statement by Francis Schonken ===
Disagree with Callanecc's proposal. Here we see Pigsonthewing going in denial about an unresolved issue regarding infoboxes, removing the link to where the discussion of that issue was taking place: – if it is qualified as "unhelpful" to try resolve an actual infoboxes issue the resulting impression remains that many months after the conclusion of the Infoboxes case at least some infoboxes proponents prefer to go largely in denial about the issues at hand.

If anything, an amendment to the Infoboxes case should imho further restrict PotW's actions regarding infoboxes. --] (]) 11:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Gerda Arendt ===
@]: "Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment." - We are not discussing here your bold change to a project page of a project of which you are not even a member, claiming that it is a "disadvantage" of infoboxes that a certain program extracting a PDF fails to render the image. --] (]) 12:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

===Statement by Rich Farmbrough===
If that was, or reasonably seems to be, the intention of the original wording, then the amendment should be made without cavil. And I would say that it clearly is the substantive intention. Any desire to extend the sanction should be the subject of a different process.

All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>15:27,&nbsp;20&nbsp;December&nbsp;2014&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />

=== Statement by Thryuduulf ===
''Note I'm commenting here as an involved editor, not as an incoming arbitrator''

I fully support this, as this matches how the restriction has been interpreted on multiple occasions at AE. Indeed, I would go further and explicitly add a second sentence "Pigsonthewing may nominate and discuss infobox templates at ]." to fully avoid any ambiguity. ] (]) 19:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other user} ===
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary.
Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

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

=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*'''Recuse''' obviously. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* The purpose of restrictions is to reduce disruption. It doesn't much matter whether the disruption is on articles or talk pages, or wherever. If his contributions in non-article space have not been disruptive, there may be benefit in formalising a narrower scope of the restriction. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
*My recollection was that we crafted the remedy to stop the infobox wars. Those were mainly around adding and removing infoboxes from articles, and that's where Andy needed to be taken away from. I personally supported allowing him to stay in policy debates on the topic, though that didn't pass. I'd certanly support such a change. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
*As Roger says, arbcom restrictions are meant to stop drama, not breathe new life into it. Considering Andy's recent attempts at testing the boundaries of his restriction and the community's uncertainty as to where exactly these boundaries lie, I'd be in favour of a gordian solution: let's simply ban Andy from anything infobox-related across all namespaces. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Climate change (]) ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected:
:{{RFARlinks|Climate change}}

List of any users involved or directly affected<br>
*{{userlinks|NewsAndEventsGuy}} (initiator)
*Generic to affected article talk page

=== Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy ===
'''The question'''<br>
As you know, ] (and the new DS system that enforces it) applies to the broadly construed topic of climate change. Does that encompass the article ]?<br>
<p>
'''My request/opinion'''<br>
I would like to see you answer "YES", and an admin or clerk paste the notification template on the article talk page.<br>
<p>
''Supporting article history''<br>
::* ''(William M. Connolley 11:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't know if it helps, but if you look at the very early history of this page you'll see it was essentially created by Ed Poor to hold a quote from Michael Crichton that '''attacked global warming'''.''
::* ''OK, now that the '''Climate wars''' have quieted down a bit '''following the Arbcom decision''', I've taken a look at the rewrites. -Vsmith 15:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)'' <br>
<p>
''What prompts the motion''<br>
Originally I wrote something about the users and editing that has been happening recently, but after completing it I decided to redact it. After all, I'm not seeking AE against anyone at this time. If anyone asks, I can just add it back. It should also be obvious that well-funded PR firms are paid to undercut belief in the notion of "scientific consensus" as part of various industries' fight against regulations, fees, and taxes. The fossil fuel industry is joined in that regard by tobacco, big pharma, and many others. There are plenty of RSs for that too, if needed. <br>
<p>
'''Conclusion'''<br>
If you agree, then please have a clerk post the DS notice on the article talk page. <br>
Thanks for your attention, Happy Holidays<br>
] (]) 13:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by Callanecc ===
{{ping|NewsAndEventsGuy}} The discretionary sanctions would apply to any edit was what broadly construed to be related to climate change, so not every edit on the page would be covered, though the two edits you linked (2004 & 2005) would be covered. Edits regarding tobacco and big pharma very likely wouldn't be covered, but edits regarding fossil fuel probably would. So the short answer is yes and no, and it depends on the edit. For example, an edit to ] regarding his military service wouldn't be covered by the ARBCC discretionary sanctions but an edit to the Environmentalism section very likely would be. Whether it's worth adding the DS template to ], I don't think it matters two much, the template doesn't need to be there for someone to be sanctioned, nor for them to be alerted about the discretionary sanctions. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by J. Johnson ===
I would point out that ] and the editing and issues there are directly connected with ], which has parallel issues and authorship. ~ ] (]) 21:10, 24 December 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).''
*'''Recuse''' <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

=== Climate change (]): Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Essentially as stated by Callanecc. In the case here, the entire article isn't related to climate change, but portions of it could be. If the edit is in a portion of the article not related, it is fine, if it is related, that particular edit falls under discretionary sanctions. As to templating, normally, an article talk page should not be templated unless all or almost all of the article would fall under DS, as almost any article could have a portion related to various areas under DS. The example of Al Gore is a good one. We wouldn't template the article on Gore himself because part of the article could relate to climate change, since edits could be made to most of the article in regards to his political career, life, etc., that would have nothing to do with climate change. A template on '']'', on the other hand, would be appropriate, as that entire article would fall under the climate change DS. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
*I can't think of anything to add beyond what Callanecc and Seraphimblade have already said. ] (]) 22:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
*I also agree with the above. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
*Concur. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
*What they said. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 12:09, 27 December 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: