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 04:02, 8 May 2016 editOpabinia regalis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators16,306 edits →Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion: cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators61,106 edits Reverting edit(s) by Tihana84 (talk) to rev. 1267648114 by SilverLocust: Rv blank request (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
<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}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|Requests for clarification and amendment|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
] ]
] ]

== Amendment request: Doncram ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Doncram}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#] (12 March 2013)
#] (12 March 2013)
#] (25 September 2013)

; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Doncram}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request
*] (12 March 2013)
:*Request release from probation
*] (12 March 2013)
:*Request removal of restriction on creation of new articles
*] (25 September 2013)
:*Request removal of topic ban (topic = National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) articles)

=== Statement by Doncram ===
For years I have abided by the restrictions, and have not appealed them though I could have a year later. Instead I have participated in other areas of Misplaced Pages, including at ] where per ] I have voted in more than 600 cases since then. I'm proud of my influencing numerous AFDs in a good way (see ]). A large number of edits of mine stem from my participation at ]; I ] by disambiguatimg 1,780 articles. I have created almost 800 articles since the arbitration case, complying by submitting articles through ]. Early on I sought to compensate for the effort imposed on AFC editors by myself participating as a volunteer there, but dropped that when it was suggested that my promoting others' articles as part of AFC work was not allowed.

About the NRHP topic ban, ''I substantially complied.'' My compliance was questioned a few times by a non-logged-in editor in cases usually resolved by my modifying a comment that I had made in an AFD or at a Talk page. ''And I did respond directly at wt:NRHP to a suggestion that a huge amount of past work by me was suspect, when that was a misperception, and my response did completely settle the concern. (Technically I should not have responded there, and I was given warning for that, but it seemed more honest than posing a clarification request here stating the response and asking if I could communicate it, and thereby indirectly delivering it.)'' A reason for my preparing this request now is that I wanted to be free to address ], although that is now closed. I the relevance of my topic ban and addressed that in part by stating I would report myself (which this does). An ironic effect of the NRHP topic ban all along has been that I cannot improve NRHP-related articles which I created when there is a complaint that they are not satisfactory in some way. The courthouses article is an example. During its AFD I reorganized but did not add new NRHP material, but I would have preferred to be free to complete the expansion that was needed. Also over time I have noted factual errors in watchlisted NRHP-related articles that I would have liked to address. I would like to fix those problems, and I would like to resume my practice of improving NRHP-related articles created by myself and others where more sources have gradually become available online, or where I am otherwise interested.

For anyone now or ever concerned about my creation of articles, I would like to point out that in my entire editing history, by ] there have been only a handful of articles I created that were subsequently deleted, even though the NRHP topic ban prevented me from participating in AFDs since 2013. Also the community never addressed ], but for what it is worth I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area.

:I want to ask for some slack about the first comment I made in the recent AFD, in which TheCatalyst31 is correct in pointing out that I unnecessarily commented about my experience of the 2012 actions of another editor. I was embarrassed about the state of the article, and I reacted in part by putting fault onto them.

:I wish I had not opened my mouth that way. Being reminded of the article, I would have preferred simply to fix it without saying anything at all, but given the topic ban I could not. It screamed at me that some explanation was needed, when the nomination was correctly pointing out that the title bizarrely did not match the contents, and also I wanted to try for a suspension/withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator (which was declined) so I commented. When making the comment I recall feeling that I had split the difference between saying nothing to explain the article's condition (which embarrassed me) vs. saying more (I don't recall what), but I regret that I showed my thin skin and included any trace of personalized comment at all. Granting this request would allow me to return and fix some other NRHP-related articles that I know have deficiencies and avoid exactly this kind of situation from arising.

:As a mitigating factor, please note that after my initial comment, I think I acted reasonably:
:*I tried to recharacterize the past more moderately: "I returned to the article in 2012 when my watchlist showed several changes starting with . As I recall I left the article again to avoid contention, until I came across it recently in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/Today or Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), which I browse frequently." (Saying this much should not have been necessary to start with either, but I was trying to replace what I said in the first comment. Saying essentially "Yep, contention happened but we don't need to go into it. And I haven't been hanging on whatever the NRHP editors are doing, it's just random that I noticed this.")
:*I suggested that I would seek some resolution / permission (which I could not immediately do, as it took time to figure out processes here and look for past relevant similar requests) which is what this is now
:*I acknowledged validity of some concerns and I edited at the article, reorganizing it without adding new NRHP material, immediately addressing some of them. I crossed my fingers about this being okay, ban-wise.
:*As , I was "skirting rather close to" my topic ban, but no one directly objected and I edited some more to respond to further comments that I agreed were also valid
:*In i provided a (readable by admins only, I presume, not readable by me) which showed the article cleaned up, organization-wise
:*At least one editor , but still to a ] (a kitten could be "roughly framed out" but "left 97% undone for other editors to deal with") and questioned whether I could "see it through" to an acceptable state by doing the "heavy lifting" needed.
:*That's what I would like to do, in any other articles that are at all "kittenish"--and there are a few, none as poor as that one though--I would like to do the "heavy lifting" that this editor suggested was necessary.

:Let me say more:

:*I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area, and it may have allowed some others to let go of some stuff too. The continuing NRHP editors have done whatever they wanted, which is great. At this point, I would rather not revisit any of the pre-2013 drama, and I care less about what the NRHP editors do. I am quite happy to be out of various roles I used to play, like trying to accommodate new editors differently than others would. I appreciate not being blamed for anything new since 2013. I don't want to be blamed for anything else going forward either, and that includes my respecting the effective consensus that new short stubs are not wanted. (That's not so hard to abide by, either, as the short stubs that were needed for various purposes--like to avoid or settle contention from non-NRHP editors about disambiguation pages needed to support the NRHP area--were in fact all created.)

:*I don't want the article creation ban continued because it gets in the way of my working effectively in completely unrelated areas. Like my creation of ] was central in settling long-running contention between others about the Isle of Man area. Like allowing me to volunteer at AFC. And it is not necessary. I did in fact learn from using the AFC process, by my experiencing how uninvolved, non-NRHP editors viewed new draft articles. I likely will continue to use AFC or seek someone else's opinion when I am unsure whether a draft is mainspace-worthy, but the project is not served by requiring that.

:*I don't want general probation continued because that is not necessary either. I have constructively participated for three years, including removing causes for contention in various areas. At this point I deserve to be allowed to get credit or not for my peace-making or other skills going forward, without anyone being able to characterize me later as doing okay but only because I was under special scrutiny, and without a cloud over me causing editors to have unnecessary concern.

:If I wanted to come back earlier, I and others might have still been too raw. Give me some credit for removing myself for longer. But three years is an eternity, and I request to be trusted without any of these three restrictions. --]]] 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

:Q: Just for fun: '''How many short stub articles''', out of the 4,412 "NRIS only" articles that Dudemanfellabra links to below, '''would you guess were created by Doncram?''' An answer is ''']'''. --]]] 04:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

::

=== Statement by TheCatalyst31 ===
I was one of the folks who asked for this topic ban in the first place, and I'd still be very reluctant to see this lifted. The issue is not just the quality of Doncram's articles (though that was a pretty big issue as of when the ban took place), it's that he can't seem to get along with other editors working on NRHP-related articles. Before the topic ban, the project seemingly had a major dispute every other month, and we lost several productive editors to it; since the topic ban, we've barely had any conflict at all. Given that Doncram recently , I don't see a change in that behavior, and I'd still be pretty worried about disturbing the peace. ] <sup>]•]</sup> 12:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Seraphimblade ===
Given the issue brought up by TheCatalyst31, accusing someone of "sabotaging" an article for a simple move as recently as last month (), I'd be very hesitant to advocate lifting the restrictions at this time. That's awfully similar to the behavior that led to these restrictions in the first place. I'd like to first see that Doncram has stopped taking disagreements so personally and is able to participate in discussion about them in a civil manner. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
:To reply to the request from {{u|Callanecc}}, while I said I would be hesitant, I'm not categorically opposed. I think the solution proposed here is a good way to test the waters, and I don't have any objection to it. Doncram, in the event it passes, I hope your return to this area is a successful one. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
:As a point of clarification, though, now that I think about it, the portion of the motion removing the topic ban allows Doncram to edit "stubs". Does this mean ''only'' stubs, i.e., articles tagged as such? It would seem to me to make more sense to word it to say "existing articles" if that's the intent. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dudemanfellabra ===
Although I did not comment on the original arbitration request, my name was mentioned several times, and I was closely involved with Doncram before the ban/other restrictions. I believe, actually, at the time of the arbitration that I was taking an extended break from Misplaced Pages, largely due to the conflicts surrounding Doncram and WP:NRHP.

Personally I agree with TheCatalyst31 that the project has been running rather smoothly without Doncram for the past three years (wow, has it really been that long?!). Despite the recent comments that were pointed out above, I would be conditionally supportive of lifting the topic ban, though I would still like to see the article creation ban in place. We have ] short articles (many of which were created by Doncram himself, which is relevant in my opinion) that can be expanded before we start worrying about creating new articles, especially the short template-esque stubs that Doncram was known for creating before the ban. I might support the idea of allowing Doncram to work on these stubs and otherwise re-integrate himself into the project. If the topic ban were to be lifted in this manner, I would still think the general probation requirement should stand. If he were to get into some contentious debate attacking the editor rather than the edits, I think the ban should be reinstated.--] (]) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
:Doncram gives an estimate of the number of NRIS-only articles on ] that he believes were created by him. I have actual numbers ], generated by a script I wrote ]. Of the 4386 articles currently listed on the page, he created 784, or roughly 17.9% of them. That's quite a lot higher than his estimate of 294, or 6.7%. Only two editors created more of the articles on that page than he did, Swampyank with 1169 (26.7%) and Ebyabe with 788 (18.0%). Just so everyone has the facts here.--] (]) 09:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by JzG ===
If the ban is lifted (which seems fair enough given the passage of time without further incident) I would suggest a restriction preventing (a) title-warring or (b) the creation of context-free stubs, which were the main problems before. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ammodramus ===
I've been involved with WikiProject NRHP for some years, and have had a number of interactions, positive and otherwise, with Doncram. I'm inclined to concur with TheCatalyst and Seraphimblade: the project's talk page has been characterized by civil discourse and mutual respect over the past few years, and I question whether this would continue if Doncram's topic ban were removed.

One reason why Doncram's participation led to so much strife was his apparent unwillingness or inability to recognize that consensus could go against his position. When other participants joined in disagreeing with his chosen course, he tended to attribute it to "bullying" (e.g. , , , ). Unfortunately, he again deployed this trope in his . A one-time lapse in ] is understandable and forgivable, but the choice of words suggests that he still perceives the project as dominated by active and influential bullies who find pleasure in ganging up on those who're actually trying to build the encyclopedia.

does nothing to alleviate my concern. Opposition to bullying is laudable, when bullying is actually taking place; and expressing an opinion on the incidence and severity of bullying at WP is certainly allowable on one's user page. However, Doncram's past use of the term suggests that his world picture is one of "Doncram trying to improve WP despite persistent attacks by bullies". This does not bode well for the future of constructive discussion at the project talk page.

If Doncram's topic ban is removed, I'd support Dudemanfellabra's recommendation of a continuing article-creation ban. Although it was hardly the only source of strife, much of the contention at the WikiProject revolved around Doncram's mass-creation of what most members regarded as subminimal stubs. I don't share Opabina's optimism that Doncram will abide by "the minimal expectations for a reasonable stub", absent a strong and unequivocal policy to compel him to do so: while he was active in the project, he continued to create two-sentence robo-stubs despite fairly strong consensus against them. — ] (]) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

===Statement by Beyond My Ken===
I agree with Ammodramus, Dudemanfellabra and JzG that if Doncram's topic ban is lifted, it needs to be replaced with either a ban on creating articles entirely or, at the '''''very''''' least, a ban on creating basically contentless stubs. Whether Opabina's perception is true or not in the general case (I certainly haven't noticed any general movement away from the creation of "sub-stubs") really doesn't necessarily follow in this specific case. The determination of ArbCom was that Doncram was not helping the furtherance of the encyclopedia by creating such articles, and years of other activities says very little about what their behavior would be like in their '''''preferred''''' subject area if sanctions were lifted entirely. ] (]) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
:Just a non-Arb agreement that Doug Weller's proposal seems apt. ] (]) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Einbierbitte===
I have been with the project practically from its inception. I have never had any acrimony or conflict with Doncram, but I note that he has acted against consensus. I think that the ban should be lifted with the caveats mentioned by Beyond My Ken. ] (]) 15:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Station1 ===
Late on 25 April, Doncram made edits to ] that added information about a NRHP historic district and a proposed NRHP historic district. He has also made several comments at ] that rely on about the proposed district, as well as comments at ]. Also on 25 April, he made edits to ], a NRHP property. All these edits seem to me to violate the topic ban. Perhaps others disagree. I also noticed includes an incorrect accusation. ] (]) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Doncram: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*{{re|Kirill Lokshin}} Done. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* Given the age of the sanctions and the absence of any obvious conduct issues for the past several years, I'd be inclined to lift them. However, I'd like to hear from some of the other editors who would be affected by this. {{@ArbComClerks}} Please invite {{u|Seraphimblade}} and ] to comment here. ] (]) 01:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
* It appears that these sanctions were last used in 2013, and Doncram's most recent block was a brief one for edit warring in 2014. Given the time that's passed, I'd be inclined to relax or remove the restrictions. I'm not convinced that one recent incident of frustration, with a reasonably constructive follow-up response, is a major concern. The community may not have had a formal discussion about stubs as recommended in the case, but standards have drifted upwards over time in any event. The minimal expectations for a reasonable stub created by a long-term editor are certainly much higher than they used to be, so I'm not sure that an explicit restriction on article creation is needed. However, I wasn't active at the time of this case, so I'd like to hear more input before making any suggestions. ] (]) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
**Also agree with Doug. Pinging {{u|Doncram}} to make sure you see this, since this request has been sitting for a bit. ] (]) 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
**Good point, {{u|Seraphimblade}}. Since no one's voted yet anyway, I from "stubs" to "articles". ] (]) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
* It seem to me that enough timehas gone by to grant the appeal. ''']''' (]) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
* I'd like to propose this:
**remove the "general probation", unused since 2013
**allow creation of non-NHRP articles
**revise the NHRP topic ban to allow him to edit existing stubs but not create new articles.
:Comments? ] ] 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
*I support Doug's proposal. ] (]) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
*Doug's proposal sounds like a good compromise. Seems reasonable. --]<sup>(]) </sup> 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

====Doncram: Motion====
:''{{ACMajority|active=14|inactive=1|abstain=0|motion=yes}}''
{{ivmbox|1=The ] arbitration case is amended as follows:
* ] is rescinded.
* ] is rescinded
* The ] imposed by {{u|Seraphimblade}} is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
* The following remedy is added to the case: {{User|Doncram}} is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to the ], broadly construed.}}

;Support
# ] (]) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
# <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
# ] ] 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
# ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
# ''']''' (]) 04:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
# ]<sup>(]) </sup> 05:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
# ] (]) 23:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

;Oppose

;Comments
:Proposing this to get the request moving, I'm still deciding. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
----

== Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Palestine-Israel articles 3}}

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Nableezy}} (initiator)
*{{admin|EdJohnston}}

''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 Nableezy ===
The longstanding practice on what edits are governed under the prohibitions passed as part of ARBPIA and ARBPIA2 was that it applied to all edits within the topic area, meaning pages that as a whole are a part of the topic area and any edit to them is covered (e.g. Hamas, Israeli-occupied territories ...) and individual edits that are about the topic to pages that as a whole do not fall within the topic area are also covered while edits to those pages outside of the topic are not (eg editing the Barack Obama page to edit material on his views and or actions regarding the conflict are covered but edits regarding his election to the presidency are not). The prohibition ] however says that IP editors and named accounts with less than 500 edits/30 days of tenure are prohibited from ''editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.'' That on its face leaves out edits to pages that are largely outside the topic area but edits that very much are within the topic area. I'm requesting clarification on whether both sets of edits are covered under the prohibition, and if so suggest an edit along the lines of ''are prohibited from making any edits that could be ...'' replacing ''are prohibited from editing any page that could be ...''. This came up on AE, so thought it wise to ask for clarification here. I'm not entirely sure who needs to be a party here, I just added the admin dealing with the AE complaint.
:{{ping|Kirill Lokshin}} Sean's comment below has several examples, the ones I think are the least ambiguous are , , , and . None of those articles can reasonably be said to be, as a whole, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, but each of the edits unambiguously are. Maybe Ed is right and this is premature, but I'm not too concerned about that specific AE. Regardless of how that is closed I'd prefer a crystal clear prohibition one way or the other, and this seems like an easy thing to make that clear. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)</small>

=== Statement by EdJohnston ===
*] probably opened this due to some comments made in the thread at ]. The AE thread is still open. At the moment it appears that the AE complaint might well be closed due to an agreement by Wikiwillkane to cease all edits in the Arab-Israeli topic area until he has reached 500 edits. In my opinion this request for clarification is premature. In the past it has been agreed by the committee that . Whatever the decision reached about partially-banned articles, the AE can go forward anyway since several fully-banned articles are named in the diffs. ] (]) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
::The thread at AE about Wikiwillkane with a warning against any further violations of the 500/30 rule. I am unsure whether it makes this ARCA moot or not, since I think Nableezy would like the committee to issue a general ruling. The question (I think) is whether the General 500/30 prohibition and a typical ARBPIA topic ban have the same scope. That is, they both restrict all A-I-related editing across all of Misplaced Pages even when the entire article (such as ]) is not otherwise an ARBPIA topic. In the AE I found myself rejecting the arguments by Wikiwillkane who believed that adding mention of Roseanne Barr's speech to a ] meeting was not an A-I violation. My view was based on what I consider to be common sense. The matter is sufficiently obvious that I don't think the committee needs to pass any motion to revise the wording of the 500/30 prohibition. ] (]) 18:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sean.hoyland ===
Recent examples:
* ARBCOM authorized the ] restriction for the ARBPIA topic area as everyone knows.
* The restriction can now be implemented automatically by the server via extended confirmed protection (see ]). This automates the task of ensuring IPs and accounts that are not allowed to edit certain articles cannot edit those articles.
* Extended confirmed protection has not been rolled out across the topic area for reasons that are unclear to me at least. It has only been implemented on articles on request after the articles have been subjected to disruption. The ARBCOM authorized restriction will be enforced whether or not an article is given extended confirmed protection. If the restriction is not enforced by the server via extended confirmed protection, it will be enforced by editors. The effect will be the same but the cost is different. Extended confirmed protection automates the enforcement of a restriction that already unambiguously applies to thousands of articles.
* Extended confirmed protection is limited in the sense that it only works at the article level. So it could be argued that it can only reasonably be implemented on any page that "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If extended confirmed protection had been rolled out across the topic area, Wikiwillkane, an editor recently brought to AE, would not have been able to edit the ], ], ] and the ] articles and no one would have had to waste their time reverting them.
* Extended confirmed protection could not have prevented the creation of the ] memorial article created for one of the 230+ victims of the latest wave of violence and the associated image copyright violations. Editors have to enforce extended confirmed protection in cases like that and they will.
* Extended confirmed protection is also not yet smart enough to help with the examples above where content unambiguously related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is added/updated/removed by people whose edits would have been rejected by the server if they had made the same edit in a protected article. The 500/30 rule needs to be implemented at the content/statement level to provide the kind of protection it is intended to provide. Any weakness will be exploited by people who lack the experience or integrity to comply with Misplaced Pages's rules. Editors who ignore ] will relentlessly exploit gaps in the protection, gaps that currently have to be plugged by people rather than the server.
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 13:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* {{u|Nableezy}}, can you provide some examples of the types of edits in question? ] (]) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
*500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles). However BLUELOCK should only be applied to pages which are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to avoid a situation where we have Barrack Obama's article (for example) BLUELOCK'd due to a related paragraph. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
----

== Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 ==
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected
:{{RFARlinks|Catflap08 and Hijiri88}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
# ]

; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Hijiri88}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|CurtisNaito}}
*{{userlinks|Sturmgewehr88}}
*{{userlinks|TH1980}}

; 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. -->
*
*
*

; Information about amendment request
* Proposal to amend ] to read as follows:
:*"1) This case focuses on the conflict between and conduct of {{user|Catflap08}} and {{user|Hijiri88}}. The conflict between the two users began on the ] and ] articles, and has spilled over to various noticeboards. Another conflict took place between {{user|CurtisNaito}} and various users including {{user|Hijiri88}} on other articles in the Japanese culture topic area, and this conflict also spilled onto various noticeboards."

=== Statement by Hijiri88 ===
<del>This wording bothered me from the start, but I didn't want to ask for an amendment immediately, and during the "proposed decision" phase I focused on the remedies more than the findings of fact.

"has spilled over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area" was not supported by any evidence, and is chronologically problematic, as the dispute between CurtisNaito and various users, including myself, on articles like ], ] and ] predates my conflict with Catflap08 by at least several months, and arguably as much as two years.

Strictly speaking, the conflict between me and Catflap08 had its origins in June 2014, but (as ArbCom observed) almost all of the diffs come from after February 2015, as the initial interaction was small-scale and simmered out quickly. The "Korean influence" conflict started in ] ], or , depending on how one views it. (My first involvement in the dispute area was in December 2013, my first post on the talk page of the article that was the primary locus of the dispute was in July 2014, and CurtisNaito's first involvement in the dispute was in October 2014.) The "Jimmu" conflict began in (I emailed ArbCom last month explaining why I was editing logged-out; it is unrelated to this dispute). Most involved users would say the dispute between CurtisNaito and myself first started on the "Soga-Mononobe" talk page beginning in . But it's also possible to date the dispute back to December 2012, when I ] an article he had written for deletion.

I fear there has been a misunderstanding here as to the "link" between the Nichiren Buddhism dispute involving me, Catflap08, and a number of other users, and the "Japanese history/culture" dispute between me, CurtisNaito, and a number of other users (Sturmgewehr88 and TH1980 were two; the other recurring players such as ], ] and ] did not appear to want to be involved in this Arbitration case, so I didn't push it). The only common threads are that they both broadly fit under the "Japanese culture" net, and that I accused both CurtisNaito and Catflap08 of the same kind of misbehaviour.</del>

] (<small>]]</small>) 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|TH1980}} Do you have an opinion on the proposed amendment to the "Locus of dispute" wording? Requesting an amendment to the wording of the ArbCom decision is practically the definition of ]. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Sturmgewehr88}} What will happen is that the Arbitration case's "findings of fact" will reflect the facts of the case rather than a confusing misconception. I don't know how the misconception came about to begin with or how it may or may not have affected the" remedies", but that's really beside the point. ] (<small>]]</small>) 04:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|John Carter}} The interactions were between CurtisNaito (and much, ''much'' later TH1980) on one "side" and several other users on the other, including me and Sturmgewehr88 (the others were not named as parties to this Arbitration case, as they had nothing to do with my separate dispute with Catlfap08). The timeline is pretty clear, as is the lack of any relationship to Catflap08 or, for that matter, you. It also isn't clear what evidence you are referring to. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

::'''Withdrawn''' I personally think that this amendment request probably does fall under BANEX, but obviously I'm a little biased. Sturmgewehr88 and Kingsindian both ''agree'' with my position here but they don't seem to like the proposed amendment. Callanecc's comment below it seems highly unlikely that any good would come of dragging this out any longer. From now on I'll be careful to keep to myself any opinions I have of those portions of the ArbCom decision that touch on the areas I'm banned from, unless I'm directly requesting clarification or amendment of the bans themselves, or appealing one or both of them sometime after next January.<!-- COMMENTing this so as not to create more fuss, but given how often things get taken out of context I need to clarify this point. This is not a concession that any of the information I cited above is less than 100% accurate or that the current wording of the decision is more than 50% accurate. --> ] (<small>]]</small>) 13:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by CurtisNaito ===

=== Statement by Sturmgewehr88 ===
While I agree with Hijiri that the original locus of dispute statement is inaccurate, I don't see what difference it would make to correct it. {{re|Hijiri88}} You've explained how it is inaccurate and provided a more accurate statement, but what exactly will happen if this change is accepted? ''']''' (]) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
:{{re|Hijiri88}} No offense to the Arbs, who I applaud for actually doing some investigation of this ''and'' doing something about it, but the misconception came about because of ignorance. The Arbs did not look in-depth at the disputes before last February (even calling May "too old" to consider), and the fact that both disputes were in the unneccesarily broad topic of "Japanese culture" led them to believe that these were connected and resulted with where we are now (2 years of consistent OR/SYNTH and IDHT issues, results in 1RR restriction for the two edit wars during the case). I don't believe they will admit that they were wrong or be willing to go through the pains of reexamining this, ]. I'm sure you'll do fine with appealing the TBAN in 8 months either way. ''']''' (]) 06:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by TH1980 ===

What exactly is this about? Hijiri88 was topic banned from the subject of Japanese culture because of disruptive edits he made to numerous articles in that field. That's what all the arbs agreed upon. What is left to discuss?] (]) 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kingsindian ===
Even during the case, I the point about the absurd finding "Locus of dispute", which does not even mention the dispute between Hijiri/CurtisNaito/TH1980. However, all this is water under the bridge. I fail to see what difference it makes now. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
=== Statement by John Carter ===
I have some questions regarding what exactly is being proposed here. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the locus section changed to perhaps to roughly approximate that indicated above, if the arbs would support that. I might personally possibly suggest as alternate phrasing changing the proposed second sentence to something along the lines of "over the course of the arbitration, evidence was introduced regarding problems regarding the interactions of Hijiri88 and other users, including Curtis Naito and TH1980, in the broader topic area of Japanese culture" or something similar. ] (]) 16:48, 4 May 2016 (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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*I'm not inclined at all to modify findings of fact in past cases. That is especially so that this amendment request is a violation of both Hijiri88's topic bans. The exemptions of BANEX which apply could only be "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" and to "appealing the ban". To meet these conditions an amendment/clarification request would need to be ''about the ban(s)'' not about the case. The fact that Hijiri88 is still focusing a decision made four months ago confirms that they have not moved on. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
* I take the same position as Callanecc about this. ''']''' (]) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
*Eh, I can see how a factual error in a case involving you might stick in your craw. (Though I don't claim to understand the details of this case, which was before my time, or to have any preference between the original or proposed wording.) I do think dropping it is the right approach. ] (]) 04:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 01:34, 9 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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 10 January 2025
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: