Revision as of 03:29, 22 April 2015 editUbikwit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,539 edits →Clarification request: American politics: Statement by Ubikwit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators57,993 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced | ||
(999 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> | ||
⚫ | = |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude> | ||
⚫ | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}} | ||
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
== Clarification request: American politics == | |||
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 11:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
;Case or decision affected | |||
:{{RFARlinks|American politics}} | |||
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
*{{userlinks|Casprings}} (initiator) | |||
*{{userlinks|Arzel}} | |||
''Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request'' | |||
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
* | |||
=== Statement by Casprings === | |||
I am asking for clarification on what ] means. Mainly, do these edits violate the topic ban. This is the subject of a current discussion at ] Clarification will enable the resolution of the discussion. Thank you. | |||
=== Statement by Arzel === | |||
Anthony Watts is not a politician and I have made no political arguments. My approach to the American Politics TBAN is to avoid any articles which are under those categories. There are a ton of articles in those categories, so it is pretty broad. It is a reasonable approach, which reasonable people would assume makes sense. Additionally, American Politics affects pretty much every aspect of your life through regulations, specific legislation, political talking points. It is almost impossible to find something which someone somewhere would not be able to find some tangential connection. I was TBAN'd partially for supposedly not assuming good faith, I do find it ironic that no good faith has been afforded me by JPS, CaSprings, and others. | |||
JPS, Do you know that I was TBAN'd by editors like for supposed incivility and battleground behavior? Your actions hear are far worse than anything I have done in the past. Where is your civility or assumption of good faith, the pile of unfounded attacks against me are growing quite fast. Same goes for you Casprings. Your claim to want to work collaboratively in the future has now rang false twice. You were not involved in this issue yet you apparently found time to come attacking me personally. ] (]) 14:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|User:Seraphimblade}}, {{ping|User:Dougweller}}, {{ping|User:Salvio giuliano}}, Regarding "Hand's up, don't shoot". As I stated in the AE, I don't see it as American Politics. The saying started as a result of the shooting of Michael Brown, and I felt then and feel now that it is a police/race relations issue. That some politicians later co-opted it does not seem relevant. It wasn't tagged as an American Politics article (my main metric). However, that said, if you want to consider it American Politics, fine. I don't care. I made one edit a month ago, completely unrelated to anything political, noting that editors were failing to discuss and edit war over a known fact with RS. I haven't edited it since, and hadn't planned on editing it again. If you all feel it is clearly related to American Politics, then go add an American Politics category to the article, simple, no harm done. ] (]) 00:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by jps === | |||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
I never understood how topic bans were supposed to work and here is an excellent example of the problem. Arzel is taking a political stand on a biographical article that is basically arguing that ] is 1) a misnomer and 2) not political. You all found fit to ban him from political articles, so now we in the ]-editing community get to deal with his ] on articles related to global warming as he and apparently a good number of ] admins see fit to say that this is not within the remit of his topic ban because there aren't any specific edits about American politicians, for example. Is such an outcome really the intention of the committee when they enact this kind of topic ban? | |||
I think it's fairly obvious that Arzel is here to support an agenda that is related, broadly, to an American conservative political stance. There's nothing at all wrong with that except that the committee had deemed it fit to sanction him at least in part with a topic ban from American politics. It's clear to me that he will continue to support this particular agenda in any way he sees that he can, even if that means skirting the edges of this ban as long as the community allows him. Why ban in the first place if this is so unenforceable? | |||
My opinion? Just lift the ban. | |||
] (]) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Fut.Perf. === | |||
{{ping|AGK}} Uhm, it ''is'' at AE, that's why it's here now. What exactly do you mean? ] ] 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Stephan Schulz === | |||
I have not followed the US politics ArbCom cases, but I have to agree with jps above that climate change denial is indeed very much a political and nearly exclusively a US political topic. While science is a process, and while climate change is a complex topic, the basics of anthropogenic global warming are well understood and there is a strong scientific consensus. Three recent independent studies with different methodologies have all found agreement to the basic science to be around 97-98% of qualified scientists. In most of the world, this is accepted by parties throughout the political spectrum, with very few exceptions, most of them very much on the political fringe. The dissent is nearly exclusively driven by conservative "think tanks", which have managed to make this into a divisive political issue in the US. --] (]) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Two Kinds of Pork === | |||
Climate change denial is a world-wide phenomenon. In context of the edits made to the BLP, one would have to construe ''very'' broadly indeed to make that about US politics. Like bent over backwards broadly. As to "Hands up", when the Justice Department get's involved in a controversial subject, it's always political. Even though he shouldn't have made it, Arzel's claim of canvassing has merit, however seeking scalps is unseemly. | |||
=== Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris === | |||
It would avoid a lot of confusion and frustration if the committee simply struck the "broadly construed" qualifier. Some of the admins at AE are (in good faith) expressing the view that only "edits to add or remove mention of US politics" or "workings of US governments and interactions with those governments" fall under the ban. It would be hard to imagine more ''narrowly'' construed interpretations. Others (including myself) take the "broadly construed" qualifier more, well, "broadly." When language causes so much confusion amongst well-meaning people it's best simply to strike it. ] (]) 02:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Ubikwit === | |||
Agree with the point made by SBHS above.</br> | |||
While CC may not be inherently political, the attempt to dismiss a peer-reviewed book published by an academic press and authored by a renowned scientist because the statements he makes in the book have political implications that the Misplaced Pages editor doesn't like would seem to breach the "broadly construed" qualifier. </br> | |||
The discussion and material at issue do not directly relate to science, but to FRINGE positions and analysis presented by a blog that is documented as being funded by petro-chemical, etc., CO2-generating industries that are intent on discrediting the science supporting the scientific consensus and preempting government efforts to regulate the offending industries. The fact that there are obvious political issues implicated in the edits related to attempts to dismiss the Mann book and the characterization of "denialist", etc. with respect to the WUWT blog seems to call for attention if not considered to fall under "broadly construed". | |||
=== 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 case request or provide additional information. | |||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> | |||
=== American politics: Clerk notes === | |||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
* | |||
=== American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion === | |||
* This should probably go to AE. ] ]] 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Having looked through the edits in question, I don't see the climate change edits to touch on its intersection with politics. Climate change ''intersects'' with politics, but it is not inherently political. Arzel would, of course, be topic banned from editing in relation to the interaction between climate change and American politics. Also, the area of climate change is itself covered by discretionary sanctions, so if Arzel's participation in that area outside its political aspects are disruptive, Arzel could be restricted under the ARBCC DS just like anyone else. The "Hands up, don't shoot" article is a different story. That is a slogan used by American citizens to protest the actions of American public officials. It is therefore unquestionably related to American politics, and that edit clearly violated the topic ban. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Basically agree with Seraphimblade. If Arzel starts discussing American politics in relationship to CC, that would be a breach. And the "Hands up" edit violated the tb. ] (]) 17:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with SB and DW. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
---- |
Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024
Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Sabotage of Lindy Li's page | 26 December 2024 | 0/0/0 |
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
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!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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-llists.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
- Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
- Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
- Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
- WP:ARCA
- WP:ARA
- WP:A/R/C&A
- WP:A/R/CL
- WP:A/R/A
- WP:A/R/CA
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment
Clarification and Amendment archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||