Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort none (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

edit

Use this section 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).

To file a clarification or amendment 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
127128

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

edit

Initiated by Selfstudier at 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area of conflict"
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Selfstudier

edit

To match WP:ECR (Idk if it is worth changing both to link to namespace 1).

@Barkeep49: @Zero0000: The discussion here refers (at the bottom)

@Zero0000: Not only. See Barkeep49 statement at the relevant AE complaint (still open) However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here. To be clear, my opinion is that ECR, being later, should take precedence but that's just me.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now, the same technicality being referred to by another editor. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I am only "proposing" that this "technicality" which has not been identified by myself, be fixed up, I'm just initiating the paperwork, to the extent anyone thinks that it is required. What I want is that it not be available as a defense by non EC editors, currently two of them mentioning it, and I suspect more inbound if left unresolved. If there is another way to clean it up, I'm all ears. And @Doug Weller: has now raised the question indirectly as well https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=1237149351&oldid=1236465052#Why_does_ARPBIA_allow_userspace_as_an_exception? Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Kenneth Kho: Many thanks for clarifying my inept proposal. For me, though, ECR should function like a tban, "any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia" Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Depends what you mean by edge case, if you mean that it isn't usually a problem, sure. However recently, I don't know quite how to put it, there has been a sort of assault on ECR, which you could, at a pinch, just call wikilawyering. See for example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis and the comment by an admin there, "I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case – seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that this edit falls outside of the CT regime. We can drag this to ARCA if we have to, but just agreeing that the filer made a vexatious argument is easier." (I won't name them, since they don't want to be here, methinks). Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

edit

There is a small mismatch between the area of scope and ECR and perhaps arbcom wants to fix that. Perhaps it doesn't. I'm not sure why I am involved in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

edit

Can we have this request actually explained, please?

I don't see any contradiction between "userspace" in "area of conflict" and "talkspace" at ECR. They serve different purposes.

One place says that the "area of conflict" does not extend to userspace (which implies that it does extend to talkspace). ECR indicates that talkspace has some differences in restrictions compared to article space. Both these make sense and can be true at the same time. We definitely do not want the "area of conflict" to exclude talkspace, because then the ECR restrictions on talkspace would not apply to it.

Or maybe I missed the point entirely. Zerotalk 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Selfstudier: So a messy argument on some user's talk page is what counts as an explanation?

As I see it, Definition of the "area of conflict" defines which pages and edits are subject to editing restrictions in ARBPIA, and WP:ARBECR says what those restrictions are. I don't see any contradiction there, and it seems to me that changing "userspace" to "talkspace" in the former would remove article talk pages from the area of conflict and disable all the restrictions there. Zerotalk 02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Selfstudier: The contradiction you claim to exist actually does not exist. Let's start at ECR:

"The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas." So now, we ask, what is the "topic area" in the case of ARBPIA? That sentence has a footnote:
"The current topic areas under this restriction are listed as having the "extended confirmed restriction" in the table of active Arbitration Committee sanctions." So we click on that link and find a big table. ARBPIA is near the end. It says:
"The entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted; edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace." (my emphasis) So in fact ECR agrees with WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" that edits in userspace are not in the ARBPIA "topic area". Where is the contradiction?

I'll also repeat (please answer): You seem to be proposing that "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" at WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" be changed to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of talkspace". Why does that make any sense? You want to remove talkspace from the topic area?? Zerotalk 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Selfstudier: If arbcom wish to undo the exclusion of userspace from the ARBPIA topic area, that's their decision, but your proposal does much more than that. Zerotalk 12:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a change to the status of userspace is to be considered, I suggest that arbcom consider all CT topics and not just ARBPIA. Personally I don't understand why an editor should be forbidden from mentioning the topic in their own user space (unless they are actively disruptive there). For example, an editor who is approaching 500 edits may develop some text in their sandbox for insertion into articles once EC is achieved — isn't that perfectly reasonable? An editor who abuses this allowance (say, by excessive pings) can be dealt with easily. Zerotalk 04:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

edit

Maybe this revert I did a couple of days ago is a useful test. Is the revert valid or invalid under the remedies? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho

edit

This amendment request came to my attention after @Doug Weller: pointed it to me, I believe I can provide some clarity for the arbitrators.

I think there is an error in the request as pointed out by @Zero0000: the intended request is likely "remove exception of userspace" instead of "change userspace to talkspace" in WP:PIA, and the opposing side would be "add exception of userspace" to WP:ECR.

The answer would depend on whether arbitrators intended WP:ECR A(1) to overrule or uphold WP:PIA 4(B), if there is an answer, we are done.

If arbitrators did not consider it at all, the strongest argument for the initiating side would be WP:BROADLY, as the broadest possible thing would be no exception to userspace.

I'm arguing in favor of the opposing side, the strongest argument would be WP:UOWN, as userspace is traditionally given broad latitude too, it seems that WP:ECR and WP:UOWN should have their own jurisdiction, and on the balance WP:ECR should not be excessively broad.

@Selfstudier: nicely pointed to WP:TBAN in support of the initiating side, but it is worth noting that WP:TBAN is intended to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive", while WP:GS is intended to "improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area", which applies here as WP:GS specifically includes "Extended confirmed restriction". Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

edit

My understanding is that"

Unless thought through extensively, there is a potential contradiction between what is defined as related content:

The 'Definition of the "area of conflict"' decision says that related content is edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace (that is, not articles).
'General sanctions upon related content' says it applies to related content but then redefines this is (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) which I suspect is intended to mean things defined above as 'related content' (not what is actually says which is pages not covered at all in the definition).

There is also the potential that any restiction (e.g. topic ban or 0RR) imposed under contentious topics cannot apply in userspace or could an editor be restricted for an edit on a userpage or user talk page.

To avoid the confusion and contradiction created I suggest that:

  • "with the exception of userspace" is removed from the definition
  • "(i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict)" is replaced with "(see [[#Definition of the "area of conflict"]])".
  • Then either:
    • A decision is added to the index explicitly allowing CTOP restrictions to apply to edits made in relation to related content anywhere on Wikipedia to close the loophole currently exempting userspace completely. This would mean, however, that to be covered user talk pages would need to have the enforcement templates on them.
OR
  • An exemption is added so that the requirements of "General sanctions upon related content" are not applied to editor restrictions imposed under CTOP. This would be the closest to the current intent where editors could be restricted from related content based on and applying to all of their editing in the topic area regardless of whether pages have the enforcement templates on them or not.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: See discussion here regarding the exemption for userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos might remember more about the discussion and thinking behind this and my statement in general too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PMC

edit

Callanecc, I'm afraid I don't recall in any greater depth than my comments at the workshop, sorry. The userspace exception was suggested by Huldra and Zero0000, who made some comments re: user talk pages that on review, look like reasonable concerns; whether or not they're still applicable I can't say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

edit

I think it would be easy to make it clear when mentioning talk space we meant user talk space and are not forbidding edit requests when the specific sanction allows them. Surely we don't want non-extended-confirmed-editors to be able add material to their own userspace they cannot added elsewhere. The purpose as I understand it of the 500 edits and 30 days is to enable them to learn our policies and guidelines and hopefully how to work constructively with others. I also think we don't want non-ecr users to use their talk space or the talk space of others to discuss the topic. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not name this but recently rsn into another edotor with the same issue, but others convinced him he was wrong, although apparently he was right. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk (Definition)

edit

Is there a reason the proposed motion uses "broadly interpreted" instead of the standard "broadly construed"? Is there a difference in meaning we are supposed to infer, or are they one and the same for purposes of this motion? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Clerk notes

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

Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Arbitrator views and discussion

edit
  • At the moment, "userspace" (including user pages, user talk pages and subpages, "all of these pages") is (only) related content to the ARBPIA area as described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict § General sanctions upon related content. This leads to the following result, which is confusing to me:This should be changed in my opinion, and I am inclined to support the removal of the userspace exemption as edit requests should be sufficient to allow non-extended-confirmed editors to participate with minimal disruption in the area. The current state allows them to wait 30 days, make 500 purely ARBPIA-related edits to their sandbox and then move that to the mainspace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to note that I am aware of and am watching this discussion, but I would like to look more into the reasoning/history behind the current wording before commenting further. - Aoidh (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any contradiction between what WP:ECR says and what WP:CT/A-I describes; the CT page describes what is and is not under the ECR restriction in a way that is entirely compatible with the wording of ECR. ECR covers the area of conflict, and userspace is not in area of conflict. However it can be as "technically correct" as possible, but if it's confusing or seemingly incompatible to reasonable editors (which seems to be the case) then it's not doing it's purpose and needs to be rewritten or amended for clarity. If we're going to be imposing these atypical rules for this topic area then they need to be accessible and easily understood. - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a real problem or an edge case? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one issue with this is that the "primary articles" and "related content" distinction has proven to be less useful with time. When the case was first decided, the extended confirmed restriction had not been established. (In fact, the ARBPIA 500/30 restriction is what eventually led to the adoption of WP:ARBECR.) Now, WP:ARBECR points A, B, and C establish the proper enforcement actions to be taken, without need for any reference to "primary articles" and "related content" — a distinction that few if any other cases maintain. I would therefore support a motion defining the "area of conflict" to simply be "the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted", and making conforming edits to the rest of the case. (We can keep the templates, but the definitions of primary articles and related content will no longer be necessary in defining the scope of the restrictions.) Doing so would resolve this request and simplify the language going forward. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: I would assume the two terms should be viewed identically. Further thoughts forthcoming — currently discussing among ourselves. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

edit

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. I hope this matches L235's idea; I'm open to them changing the motion text if I missed something. It's a simple and clear solution, and simplifying confusing conditions that have actually caused confusion is good to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
  • ...

Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban

edit

Initiated by Lima Bean Farmer at 20:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Original topic ban made before switch to contentious topics
AE appeal that modified the topic ban

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Lima Bean Farmer

edit

I need clarification on how I would properly appeal a topic ban. According to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, after a year a topic ban in contentious topics wouldn’t need community review. However, what makes this complicated is that the initial topic ban was imposed by one administrator but a later appeal was decided by AE consensus. It is not clear what level of appeal or how I would go about removing the topic ban and would appreciate any clarification. Thank you in advance!

Statement by Tamzin

edit

Commenting as closer of the appeal. I see the logic that an appeal's denial at AE is tantamount to a consensus-of-AE-admins sanction. However, that would create a perverse incentive not to appeal in the first year of an individually imposed sanction. Why appeal to AE at 11 months if a decline would strip you of your right to appeal to an individual admin at 12 months?

I think the only way to avoid that paradox is to say that declines only count as AE-consensus sanctions if the AE admins a) explicitly assume the action as a consensus action, and/or b) impose new, stricter sanctions in the course of declining. (Here, I imposed a new sanction with Dreamy's consent and other admins' support, but it was narrower than Dreamy's original.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk (Lima Bean)

edit

Is it correct to read WP:CTOP as saying that more or less any admin can unilaterally undo any unilateral CTOP action on appeal provided that 1 year has passed? If so, it would be nice it it were more clear. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

edit

As far as I remember, this sanction is not subject to the 1 year rule because it was made before the switch to contentious topics. This is based on WP:CTOP#Continuity. As such, it needs to follow the rules as if it was a sanction made less than a year ago. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, given the appeal and subsequent modification was held at AE after the switch to contentious topics, does the modification of the topic ban now prevent it from being seen as a topic ban that is exempt from the 1 year rule?
I would argue that the topic ban modification doesn't necessarily change the 1 year rule exemption (unless I've missed something that's said in the document).
Asking this to you specifically because you said this is now modifyable after a year and I don't know if this because you see the modification as removing the exemption to the 1 year rule or if the modification of the scope represents a entirely new sanction. I don't see this as a new sanction because in the WP:AELOG it is styled as a amendment of the scope and my original topic ban is not struck. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether an appeal should be granted from my point of view, I have not had a chance to review recent contributions so don't have an opinion at this time.
If my comment is desired on that, let me know and I should be able to do that next week. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided some thoughts at AE where an appeal has been filed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

edit

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban: Clerk notes

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

Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban: Arbitrator views and discussion

edit
  • Declining an appeal at AE is not imposing a sanction, so the "no appeals" language does not apply, unless per #Appeals and amendments A rough consensus of administrators ... may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals ... may be submitted. Per the procedural summary, then, it is appealable after a year and may be extended, but would not strictly require a consensus at AE to lift. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have to re-review the issue; if the ban was in place before the switch to CTOP then it would probably fall under the old procedure but I will have to check. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per other comments, declining an appeal should not reset the clock or change the methods of appeal, but a significant modification or positive reaffirmation should do so. In this particular case, I agree with Tamzin's proposal to not consider this either of the latter two options as it narrowed the topic ban; once could almost consider it to be a partial lift of the original sanction. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted to some of my colleagues recently, I miss ACDS sometimes (if I had to start somewhere, the cooler name ...). Anyways, my understanding of this is that as the AE topic ban (changing to post-1992) was carried out under the new contentious topics procedures, it superseded and replaced the old DS topic ban. As it was imposed at AE, the one-year rule does not apply and a formal appeal would need to be successful (ie consensuses at AE/AN or a motion here).
    On the broader policy question, I agree that declinations of appeals by themselves do not reset the clock, but since this appeal led to a new sanction being imposed, that is a material change in circumstances. @Red-tailed hawk: I feel like the procedure is relatively clear: only single-administrator sanctions and indefinite blocks can be undone in this manner (see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Procedural summary too).
    I think that this status quo is okay, unless I've grievously misinterpreted things. There may be issues with interpreting whether something is narrower or broader than another sanction, which makes me think that changing it isn't necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red-tailed hawk: That is what the committee was trying to do, as someone who was very much in disagreement on this point. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: That is probably the most logical way to cut the knot --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hold that appeals still need to go to AE/AN; i.e., that they cannot be heard by any single administrator (without Dreamy's consent). That's because the one-year rule does not apply to the original sanction (under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Continuity), and I would hold that the AE appeal narrowed the original sanction rather than imposed a new sanction. @Dreamy Jazz: if you don't have time to review this on the merits, you can if you want consent to other administrators changing the sanction on their own, under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: German war effort

edit

Initiated by Cinderella157 at 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
German war effort arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Cinderella157

edit

I simply ask the community ArbCom to review whether this ban continues to serve any reasonable purpose consistent with the prevailing WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have learnt to discern that some things are difficult to substantiate and are therefore better left unsaid. I am not a project coordinator and have no foreseeable aspirations to become one. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, the absence of K.e.coffman is news to me. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Sdrqaz

edit

The sanction was imposed as a remedy for personal attacks against a particular editor. ArbCom determined that I could not substantiate particular allegations and that in consequence, these rose to being personal attacks. If I was inclined, I might have continued to make such attacks against the editor of record in areas unrelated to the Tban or despite the Tban. I have not. I submit, that ArbCom's determination that the editor of record had not engaged in misconduct was sufficient remedy to prevent further similar allegations/personal attacks.

As noted, I have been actively editing in several contentious topic areas, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Indo-Pakistani wars - areas known to foster editor misconduct an personal attacks. I have become more discerning in how I deal with perceived misconduct or whether I deal with it at all. Where I have had occasion to raise issues of conduct, I have been more discerning and circumspect as to how and where such matters are dealt with. My conduct in doing so has not been seen by the community as being personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate - certainly not rising to the level necessitating sanction. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

edit

As some of the arbitrators have noted below, it is the ArbCom rather than the broader community that would consider whether to terminate or modify one of ArbCom's own remedies. Given that Cinderella157 filed his appeal request on this particular page, it is likely that he was aware of this fact, and that his use of the term "community" either was simply inartful, or perhaps was meant as a suggestion that non-arb community members might wish to comment on his request. In any event, if he wasn't already aware of the proper procedure, he is now.

What would be needed next is some explanation of why Cinderella157 believes the sanction no longer serves a reasonable purpose. Simply saying so without a word of explanation will certainly not succeed. In making his case, I suggest he should also bear in mind that when the German war effort case was decided six years ago, none of the current arbitrators were on the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Euryalus

edit

I was on the Committee during this case and this sanction has been bothering me somewhat. Some points:

  • The topic ban: It was proposed in case /Evidence that Cinderella157 could not edit WWII topics neutrally because they are an "apologist" for Nazi Germany (see this "Apologetics" section). This was a strong claim for which we should expect strong proofs. Unfortunately, very little evidence was then provided, with the principal diffs on topic neutrality being:
    • this disagreement re the qualifications of authors of a specific WWII history book;
    • this statement that historical re-enactment society volunteers might or might not all be sympathisers of the cause they re-enact; and
    • this evidence section by Cinderella157 which relevantly states: My position is that WP must find a middle ground in dealing with events of WW2 and particularly biographies IMO - that is, a position that does not glorify or apoligise (on the one hand) but which does not vilify without substance (in the case of individuals as opposed to the regime). I don't entirely agree with these sentiments but wouldn't describe them as worthy of a topic ban from WWII.
Perhaps reflecting the paucity of hard evidence, the Committee made no reference to these diffs in the Decision and no Finding of Fact regarding Cinderella157's neutrality in this topic.
  • Personal attacks: Separately, Cinderella157 make this comment during the case, which was correctly perceived as a personal attack on another editor. Evidence was also presented of a difficult relationship with that editor over a long period (see here and here. The Committee made a Finding of Fact on personal attacks here. I mention this because disruptive interpersonal relationships between editors in the same topic area can sometimes lead to disruption of the topic itself. However the normal responses to disruptive interpersonal relations or personal attacks are interaction bans or blocks. Neither was imposed in this case, and again given the passage of time it seems the issue has resolved. If a personal attack was made at some future point it would more appropriately be responded to with an i-ban or a block, rather than a topic ban from any specific set of articles.
  • Progress since the ban: Cinderella157 breached the topic ban once in 2019 and was blocked for 5 days. Since then have since made around 9,000 edits to military history articles, seemingly without issue. Their edit history and talkpages seem to suggest competent engagement with complex and controversial topics including the Russo-Ukrainian War, and no issues with apologetics or personal attacks.

Apologies if all this seems like a relitigation of the actual case. Fwiw I'm not an editor of WWII history and have never interacted with Cinderella157 or anyone else from this case in any other topic. I also don't doubt the sincerity of the editor who originally lodged this case, or their multiyear commitment to improving Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. Their evidence against some others, for example LargelyRecyclable was impeccable and justified the ban that we imposed.

The reason for posting the above re Cinderella157 is simply that this topic ban has stuck in my mind over several years as a sanction that probably didn't need to be made. So long as they didn't seem to care, neither did I. But now they've asked for it to be lifted it seemed reasonable to take a minute to support that request. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To somewhat clarify the above: the principal point I'm making is that the topic ban was adopted as a misplaced response to a personal attack. There was no real evidence that Cinderella157 was unable to edit this topic neutrally. There's also no evidence of ongoing personal attacks. On these bases I've always considered this topic ban unnecessary and this ARCA was a good opportunity to say so. :)
Beyond that, agree its up to Cinderella157 to provide a more substantial justification for its removal than they currently have. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho

edit

I would support waiting for Coffman's statement for two weeks, but the reason is simply to provide all sides fair opportunity to be heard. However, if there must be an answer as to whether the "timing of the appeal has anything to do with Coffman's absence", it can't be anything other than a resounding no per WP:AGF. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German war effort: Clerk notes

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

German war effort: Arbitrator views and discussion

edit

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)

edit

Initiated by Red-tailed hawk at 17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles and related AE thread.
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Pursuant to WP:CTOP#Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee, a recent Arbitration Enforcement thread has closed with instructions to refer the dispute to the full arbitration committee for final decision.


Lists of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Involved AE participants
Other editors whose behavior was directly mentioned in the AE thread
Referring administrators
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Throughout the discussion among administrators at AE, several sources of disruption were identified:
  1. Long-term slow-motion edit warring by a number of individuals within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
  2. Long-term tag-team edit warring by several groups of individuals with the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
  3. The widespread nature of edit warring, battleground mentality, and POV pushing within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
  4. The ineffectiveness of previous warnings within the topic area to stop the disruption.
  5. The inability of the tools available at AE to adequately handle disruption that involves a large number of parties over long periods of time.
Several suggestions were floated by administrators during the discussion, including the issuance of warnings to multiple individuals, the imposition of 0RR restrictions on either select individuals, or 0RR restrictions on large numbers of individuals coupled with select IBANs, TBANs, individual anti-bludgeoning restrictions, and topic-wide restrictions on the length of posts people make in discussions within this topic area. However, because the discussion broadly turned into a set of complex and multi-party complaints regarding behavior of multiple editors over long periods of time, a consensus was reached among administrators to refer the broader dispute to the arbitration committee.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Red-tailed hawk (AE referral)

edit

  Note: The arbitration amendment template limits how many individual I can initially add, so I will shortly be adding the rest of the admin and non-admin participants to the list above in their own section.

Additionally, as I can't find any prior examples of referrals by looking through the archive, I have tried to do my best here in light of the fact that this is a referral rather than a standard amendment request/appeal. Arbitrators should not hesitate to let me know if I have formatted this in an unexpected way.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: As should be more obvious now, it's everyone who contributed to the AE discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: There's currently a discussion over at WT:Arbitration/Requests#Template for referrals from AE around that topic. For completeness's sake, I included everyone in this one. Going forward, there might be some norm/convention, but I figured that it was better to incorporate everyone rather than potentially leave someone relevant out. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do acknowledge that I left out several individuals whose behavior was directly mentioned, and I will fix that issue now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: Thank you for your comment. I think that a full case/case-like structure would be best, as that is the sort of thing that would allow for clear examination of the complex multi-party disputes that AE is not quite able to handle well. In my view, I don't think the topic-wide "please be brief in discussions" provision will be enough, as it isn't going to remedy the long-term edit warring/tag teaming, nor the civility issues that have driven away good faith editors from the topic area.
In the event that a full case is opened, I agree that it is most appropriate to only have the individuals whose behavior is under examination to be considered as parties. But, before that list is finalized, we might want to have some space for the community to identify that sort of behavior—perhaps the section for statements in this thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

edit

@Red-tailed hawk: How did you come up with this list of parties? Levivich (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RTH: Thanks. It strikes me as odd that the list of parties is everyone who commented in an AE thread, as opposed to everyone involved in a dispute, or everyone who has been sanctioned, or been accused of violating policy, or some other list criteria, but I also don't know how these referrals are supposed to be formatted. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by האופה

edit

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

edit
  • There seems to be constant RFCs and threads about the reliability of sourcing in this area. I know the current arbitration request is about long term edit warring, but there is also long-term campaigns in talk spaces to remove usage of certain sourcing. See the downgrading of the ADL, the current RFC in WP:RSN about Al Jazeera, etc. The downgrading of the ADL, in particular, caused significant media coverage for barely much difference in the status quo of average Wikipedian (from my understanding, we already had significant warnings about using ADL with attribution only when speaking about Israel Palestine, the change in status quo hardly meant much more than a media circus). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of reversion, the reversion limits are harder to understand in CTOP space, especially for more contentious arguments. A clarification of what the "base" article text is and what the contentious edit that is being reverted is would be useful. In my case on Genocide of indigenous peoples, there are still questions of how to apply WP:NOCONSENSUS vs WP:ONUS when a contentious edit (which probably should be removed by WP:ONUS) had been placed in text for long while (and therefore should remain by WP:NOCONSENSUS). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional clarification on whether coordinated tag-team editwarring (i.e. WP:CANVASSED) or incidental tag-team editwarring should be treated similarly would be useful Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going off of the suggestion from ScottishFR, for the limit of 500-1000 words, some of these RFC discussions go long. Instead of absolute limits that could unfairly limit discussion among the most passionate editors of the topic, would it be possible to go with proportional limits (no more than 500 words or 10% of comments, whichever is greater?), or limits per week (500 words per week?) In addition, I have questions if such a limit would apply to single RFC threads, or to the whole topic at once. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

edit

Statement by Selfstudier

edit

1.There is another relevant recent AE related thread, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani. Many of the editors here, including myself and several of the uninvolved administrators, were participants and the case revolved around behavior (and content) at the Zionism article and this same subject matter is a part of the current case, Levivich diffs refer (the last two).Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

edit

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

edit

Statement by Sean.hoyland

edit

Statement by Iskandar323

edit

Statement by Dan Murphy

edit

Statement by Nableezy

edit

Statement by BilledMammal

edit

Statement by Zero0000

edit

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

edit

Statement by Barkeep49

edit

Re:L25: I didn't support moving this here because I was looking for an ArbCom only remedy as I felt we had whatever options we wanted on the table per the Contentious topic procedures A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. (emphasis added) I supported coming here because I think AE is ill-suited to a multi-party sprawling request like this. I actually think האופה is the least important party here in most ways and if the thread had stayed constrained to them a rough consensus would have been found. Instead, the discussion ballooned to potential misconduct by multiple other editors. For me the editors whose conduct needs examining would be BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Nableezy, and Selfstudier and I think ArbCom should review, and hopefully endorse, the work SFR has been doing as an uninvolved administrator given the concerns at least one of the parties (Nableezy) has raised about that work. Additionally, I think Levivich has been promoting, in this and some other recent AE reports, claims of misconduct based on tagteaming/edit warring that I personally don't find convincing (even if the same conduct does show other misconduct I do find convincing, namely a battleground mentality) but which ArbCom is better positioned to examine both because it can do so comprehensively, rather than in a series of one-off AE requests, and because of the authority ArbCom has to interpret existing policy and guidelines, [and] recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add one thing. If this ArbCom can't do the review of editor conduct well, and given that this is the committee with the biggest issues with activity among arbs of any 15-member arbcom in at least a decade it may decide it doesn't have the capacity to do this well, I'd suggest it find a wait to "punt" that decision, instead focusing on whether or not it agrees with Levivich's interpetation of tag-teaming/edit warring. I say this based on comments members of the 2019 committee (a 13-member committee which is the only one to have a bigger activity problem than this committee) have made around their inability to give PIA4 and Antisemitism the full attention they deserved. In the latter case this then blew up into a much bigger case (WP:HJP). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Theleekycauldron

edit

@L235: I agree with Barkeep that this should be a full case. But Red-tailed hawk is right on his list of parties – this is a sprawling case where basically all of the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground that AE hasn't been able to resolve. Not because of a lack of authority, but because of the complexity of the case combined with the standard unblockables problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeleYoetz

edit

Statement by TarnishedPath

edit

I understand that the list of participants is everyone who was involved in a particular AE discussion or who was mentioned in that discussion. My editing in the topic area is limited, with a limited number of articles on my watchlist. I don't intend on following this closely. If my participation is required at any point please ping me, presuming the case goes ahead. TarnishedPathtalk 22:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

edit

Statement by DMH223344

edit

Statement by M.Bitton

edit

Statement by {other-editor}

edit

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.

Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Arbitrator views and discussion

edit
  • Thank you to the AE admins for submitting this referral. As a procedural note I would suggest that we limit the parties to this request to האופה and other users whose behavior is under consideration here (perhaps the editors listed under "Other editors whose behavior was directly mentioned in the AE thread", though even that list may be too long).
    @האופה: It would be quite helpful to have your perspective here. I would also appreciate hearing further from the uninvolved admins as to what you'd like ArbCom to do — I see two buckets of possibilities: (1) Hold a full case or case-like structure to resolve the complex multiparty questions here, and/or (2) Remedies that only ArbCom can impose (e.g. Maybe even everyone is limited to 500-1000 words in any ARBPIA discussion. as ScottishFinnishRadish suggests). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1240870640"