Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals | 28 March 2024 | 0/4/1 | |
Venezuelan politics | 29 March 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 20 September 2021 |
Clarification request: COVID-19 | none | (orig. case) | 9 October 2021 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
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!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}
to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
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:
Amendment request: India-Pakistan
Initiated by RGloucester at 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Addition of the new extended confirmed restriction as found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction, replacing the existing community-imposed 500/30 rule at WP:GS/IPAK.
Statement by RGloucester
Following the adoption of the extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion, I would like to request that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee consider taking over the community-imposed 500/30 restriction in the India/Pakistan topic area (WP:GS/IPAK), and incorporating it into the existing ARBIP case as a standard 'extended confirmed restriction'. The reasons for this are as follows. Firstly, in the interest of reducing red tape, it makes sense to adopt the new procedure in this topic area, rather than leaving the old IPAK restriction as an isolated example using different and outdated rules. Future community-imposed EC restrictions will most likely mirror the new ArbCom standard, negating this problem, but given that an existing ArbCom sanctions regime exists in this topic area, it seems to make a lot of sense to take this opportunity to simplify enforcement overall. I think most will agree that standardisation, rather than fragmentation, is desirable. I have filed this request for amendment at the suggestion of the honourable Bradv. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I think this is a very strange opinion on the part of the Committee. If there is anything that the community wants, it is to break free from overlapping jurisdictions with separate rules and overwhelming complexity, creating grounds for conflict as was seen in the ARCA that led to the recent omnibus motion. Who does it benefit to have separate ArbCom and community general sanctions regimes, with different rules, in the same topic area? It benefits no one at all, and is strikingly convoluted. ArbCom has the ability to prevent future conflict and simplify this situation, making life easier for both enforcing administrators and editors alike, but instead, it seems that the members here are reluctant to be seen as 'heavy-handed'. If anything, I think, the community would prefer if it could propose sanctions regimes through its own processes, and then submit its proposals to ArbCom for ratification and enforcement under the existing processes, rather than having a parallel infrastructure, but I suppose that's a discussion for another day. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: The problem with that suggestion is that ArbCom has not established a process by which community consensus for ArbCom intervention in a community sanctions regime can be demonstrated. You cannot reasonably ask that I put such a consensus on display, when there is no established method by which this can be done. Instead, perhaps consider the numerous, numerous comments you received in the recent DS consultation about the complexity of the present system, and the words of the esteemed Newyorkbrad at the recent omnibus motion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Indeed, if this proposal fails, I will propose an amendment at WP:AN as such. However, even if such a change is enacted, it will not eliminate the problem of separate ArbCom and community regimes in the same topic area. This is a problem that only the Committee can tackle. If there were no such overlap, I would of course not be proposing this here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: The problem with that suggestion is that ArbCom has not established a process by which community consensus for ArbCom intervention in a community sanctions regime can be demonstrated. You cannot reasonably ask that I put such a consensus on display, when there is no established method by which this can be done. Instead, perhaps consider the numerous, numerous comments you received in the recent DS consultation about the complexity of the present system, and the words of the esteemed Newyorkbrad at the recent omnibus motion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I think this is a very strange opinion on the part of the Committee. If there is anything that the community wants, it is to break free from overlapping jurisdictions with separate rules and overwhelming complexity, creating grounds for conflict as was seen in the ARCA that led to the recent omnibus motion. Who does it benefit to have separate ArbCom and community general sanctions regimes, with different rules, in the same topic area? It benefits no one at all, and is strikingly convoluted. ArbCom has the ability to prevent future conflict and simplify this situation, making life easier for both enforcing administrators and editors alike, but instead, it seems that the members here are reluctant to be seen as 'heavy-handed'. If anything, I think, the community would prefer if it could propose sanctions regimes through its own processes, and then submit its proposals to ArbCom for ratification and enforcement under the existing processes, rather than having a parallel infrastructure, but I suppose that's a discussion for another day. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: Unfortunately, no amount of community consensus can eliminate the problem of having the ArbCom DS regime established by WP:ARBIP and the WP:GS/IPAK community ECR regime co-existing together in the same topic area. Only ArbCom can solve this problem. There is currently no process by which the community can appeal for ArbCom to take over a GS regime other than ARCA, and there is also no process of any kind by which the community could take over the ArbCom GS regime. It shocks me that people are taking this suggestion as being equivalent to either a power grab by ArbCom, or an attempt to subvert consensus. In practice, this change would only be a formality. The community's regime would function as before, in line with its intent in establishing the regime, the only difference being that it would be incorporated into the package of existing ARBIP restrictions so as to avoid confusion and overlap, which has been demonstrated to cause problems numerous times. RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the statements by other editors here, I think that, rather than have ArbCom take over this sanctions regime, it would be better to have a wholesale community review of its function and necessity. In practice, the regime is not functioning as was intended, and it is not clear if the community still supports its existence. Therefore, I hereby withdraw this request. I will open a section at AN to consider the future of this regime. If the conclusion of that discussion suggests that the regime should continue to exist, I will open a new ARCA. Thank you for your consideration. RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 and Bradv: I've opened a community review at WP:AN. While it is not certain yet, the general consensus thus far is that it would make sense to abolish WP:GS/IPAK and relog those few pages that are ECPed under GS/IPAK at WP:AEL under WP:ARBIP. I would like to confirm, since the question arose in that discussion, that the Committee would not object to the closing admin relogging these EC page protections in this manner if consensus reaches such a conclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nosebagbear
I have to oppose this proposal, and do so on a couple of grounds.
Firstly, I concur that this is a very heavy way to acquire a change - raising a request at AN either to change this specific GS in nature, or update all GS, would be the logical route. Doing so would not be particularly onerous, and as such I'm genuinely confused why *this* would be the logical route.
Beyond that, while ARBCOM has an exemption to consensus, that is within its own remit. As such my own personal viewpoint is that ARBCOM doesn't have any grounds to strip GS in any regular set of circumstances (it can, of course, layer DS on top as it sees fit). My preference would be, in the recent cases where we've seen them remove it, would be to add DS and then ask the Community to remove GS as not necessary, and see if the Community agrees. Not remove it themselves.
That said, even if that particular position is not felt to be accurate, I believe most would agree that wherever possible, consensus should be the form taken, and it must be fairly clear that discarding it is necessary for ARBCOM to exercise their exemption. As such, doing so without a case would be heavily insufficient in terms of vetting - and, per the above, still unneeded. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: per Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community_Sanctions, the relevant line is
Requests for amendments, clarification, or revocation (if sanctions are no longer required) should also be discussed at the administrators' noticeboard.
. Wanting it to be subceded to ARBCOM DS would be a form of amendment, and therefore should be raised at WP:AN to get a consensus. While it would be an interesting jurisdictional question to determine whether the Community could directly add an additional topic to DS, in practical terms the arbs could just hold this motion as pending while the Community then discussed it. Probability approaches unity that the arbs would gladly supercede the GS into a single DS should the Community request it. To say that we don't have a mechanism for this to me requires such a strictly literalist interpretation of the text that it should also rule out the method currently being attempted. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)- Just for clarity's sake, obviously this has been resolved, gordian-knot style Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: per Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community_Sanctions, the relevant line is
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
The philosophical aspect (that the community should be able to pass remedies without ArbCom's help) is not really supported by the evidence. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions ("GS") are, per the GS logs, often ineffective. That's presumably part of the reason this Committee took over the COVID GS, and that has been more effective since it became a DS. The reasons why are speculative, the common idea that it's due to access to AE is not supported IMO --
The IPAK remedy is identical to the Israel-Palestine 30/500 restriction. Except, there are literally thousands of pages protected under the auspices of the Israel-Palestine ArbCom sanctions (regardless of actual or potential disruption, which for many of these protected pages is zero). In contrast, there are ~25 pages protected under WP:GS/IPAK. Unless we think Wikipedia only has 25 articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan
, it's pretty safe to say this is a largely unenforced GS, and in practice protections are more or less ECP protections under admin discretion (i.e. DS).
This amendment is probably not just clerical. If the Committee takes over this restriction, it will probably be enforced better. In part because more admins will be aware of its existence (how many know GS/IPAK even exists?). So on the topic of community control, this poses the question whether the community really wants it enforced better? I imagine an AN section to revoke this authorisation would fail, but at the same time I doubt there's community support to actually enforce the restriction the community passed, nor do I think proper enforcement would improve the project. The remedy just seems questionable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by RegentsPark
I don't think this is a good idea. Community sanctions tend to be passed by a small group of editors and don't receive the level of scrutiny that a full arbcom case does (Disclosure: I was one of the few editors that opposed the ECP sanctions). In this particular case, the facts on the ground (so to speak!) are that very few pages are actually under ECP and the level of disruption is, at best, minimal (many pages see hardly any traffic at all). A wholesale ECP protection would not be in Wikipedia's best interests. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
Arbitrators, I've tentatively closed the discussion at AN (perm link) that saw consensus to dissolve the IPAK GS regime, with the view that ARBIPA suffices. Please review my work. Thank you. El_C 15:36, 1 October 2021 (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.
India-Pakistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I would prefer that the community do this instead of us. Is there anything preventing the community from modifying its restriction to mirror the new language? It seems a bit heavy-handed to exercise the authority of the committee to overrule consensus when there seems to be a much less intrusive way (go to WP:AN, start a thread, and get consensus to change it, which probably wouldn't take much effort at all). ArbCom's authority, and ability to overrule consensus, is justified by us focusing on disputes that the community is unable to resolve, which is less present here. (And this doesn't quite parallel the practice of superseding community-authorized DS ("GS") when it's not working, because when we authorize DS we bring enforcement over to AE.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- At this point, the community seems more inclined to abrogate its 500/30 restriction than to ask us to assume it (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Community review: WP:GS/IPAK sanctions). Assuming that's how it ends up, I think this can be closed without further action. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Kevin. I don't want to absorb a community-enacted sanction simply because we changed the language of our own similar sanction. Katietalk 14:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think that community led "general sanctions" are a Good ThingTM and should be encouraged - it's yet another way that the wider community has managed to deal with long term problems without going through Arbcom. The last thing I want to do is subsume them into DS. I understand that it's sometimes necessary (as part of a wider Arbcom decision), but I'd rather not. WormTT(talk) 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the above and also will note my more general desire to see a way for GS turned into DS as a community request. Doing it as part of a full case, like we had for IRANPOL, seems OK but we've also done it by motion owing to a desire to access AE. In this latter case I wish there was a way we could show actual consensus, rather than just some people showing up to ARC, before making such a change. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: in terms of your assertion about what the community wants, I would suggest that getting that consensus first might lead to a different sense of perspective here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: I am taking NYB's comments seriously. It's why I am reluctant to add more instructions in places that we're not already responsible for. As I see it, either community GS works, in which case ArbCom should only rarely be turning them into GS and considering our overall caseload 3 times this calendar year doesn't strike me as rare, community GS doesn't work, in which case I would prefer to see this gain consensus through a community process rather than an ArbCom process, or community GS works sometimes but not others, in which case I think the community is just as responsible for identifying the distinction between working/not working as ArbCom if not more so. In this particular instance there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from proposing an amendment to the community GS, through a community process, to bring the wording into alignment with what ArbCom did. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: I am in general skeptical that many indef protections under DS need to be indef so I would, as I noted at AN, prefer to see the ones needed moved over. But if others think we should bring them all I would support the motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: I am taking NYB's comments seriously. It's why I am reluctant to add more instructions in places that we're not already responsible for. As I see it, either community GS works, in which case ArbCom should only rarely be turning them into GS and considering our overall caseload 3 times this calendar year doesn't strike me as rare, community GS doesn't work, in which case I would prefer to see this gain consensus through a community process rather than an ArbCom process, or community GS works sometimes but not others, in which case I think the community is just as responsible for identifying the distinction between working/not working as ArbCom if not more so. In this particular instance there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from proposing an amendment to the community GS, through a community process, to bring the wording into alignment with what ArbCom did. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RGloucester: in terms of your assertion about what the community wants, I would suggest that getting that consensus first might lead to a different sense of perspective here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think that subsuming GS into DS is a good idea which allows us not only to respect the will of the community but also streamline our very confusing sanctions bureaucracy. I remain firmly of a mind that GS should share the same processes as DS, except that the community may will them into being at AN. RGloucester's idea is a good one. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I also believe that community GS should follow the same rules as DS. Except that I don't think it's up to me, or ArbCom, to force those rules on the community. To RG's point above I do think the committee could use our expertise/experience to draft a model statement that the community could use when adopting GS - something along the lines of "General sanctions will be imposed on Foo topic area, broadly construed. These sanctions will follow the same procedures as DS, including any subsequent changes/updates." But just because it's easier to get 7 Arb votes to do cleanup than a real community consensus doesn't mean that the cleanup falls with-in ARBPOL, in my mind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- A maze of overlapping sanctions benefits no one, and we passed the new language about extended-confirmed restrictions in order to streamline procedures and reduce bureaucracy. According to those same principles, we should grant RGloucester's request. – bradv🍁 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with CaptainEek and bradv here. Having too different sanctions regimes for the same topic area is unnecessary confusing and taking over the GS as DS seems a good way to make it less so. Regards SoWhy 12:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also more of the opinion that requiring a separate community motion to do this would be overly bureaucratic. If I had any thought that there could be significant opposition to the idea, I'd be much more inclined to recommend a separate discussion. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I gather that this matter is now resolved. Does anyone disagree? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Clarification request: COVID-19
Arbitrators have clarified. firefly ( t · c ) 11:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Davidships at 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC) 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 DavidshipsThe COVID-19 standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. What was intended by "broadly construed"? There are now hundreds of thousands of pages which mention "COVID-19", including a very large number of biographies of victims, locations where restrictions have been imposed, transport links affected (including cruise and other ships), yet it seems that under 700 have had the sanctions template added. Those do include quite minor mentions, for example MS Aegean Myth. I assume that the sanctions apply to all articles, whether or not the template has been applied to talk pages. With this kind of article is it necessary for the template to be specifically included? 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. COVID-19: Clerk notes
COVID-19: Arbitrator views and discussion
|