Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan | none | (orig. case) | 12 July 2022 |
| Clarification request: Eastern Europe | none | (orig. case) | 24 July 2022 |
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: Kurds and Kurdistan
Initiated by Barkeep49 at 19:12, 12 July 2022 (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
- Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Repeal of topic ban
Statement by Thepharoah17
I got a one year topic ban in this area and would like to appeal the ban. Apparently, my editing was disruptive and I pledge to change that. I never meant any harm with my edits. In any case, I just took a seven month break from Wikipedia and am ready to contribute positively. I was kind of busy in the past few months. If you let me back, I promise I will contribute positively. There was a sockpuppet that I was dealing with and things may have gotten a bit messy but I promise there will be no disruption from me. You can look at my talk page history and see that I have never been disruptive. By the way, I am not sure if I am appealing this the right way or if I have to appeal to the arbitration committee i.e. I did not know what to put for 'user imposing the sanction' so I just put ArbCom. The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt (and did not even get one of the diffs correct). Go through my talk page history and you will find almost no warnings. You want to extend the topic ban, go ahead. I fully swear 100% to god that I have NEVER been disruptive. That case was opened by a banned user. That one month block btw, I’m not sure what it was for i.e. I think it was supposed to be an arbitration block but it was because a user went forum shopping. I am telling you I am 100% innocent. The block on the French wiki was because I was reverting a sockpuppet's edits on that wiki. I am telling you, though, I am 100% innocent. If you do not believe me, that is your choice. The topic ban is not even possible. Banned users cannot open arb cases. Do whatever you want. Honestly, I don’t even know why I even came back. The whole thing is just weird but again do whatever you want. Banned users cannot open arb cases and users like Levivich cannot do (or are not supposed to be allowed to do witch hunts). Before that point, I had NEVER really had any warnings. He did a witch hunt and portrayed me as a disruptive editor. I am telling you, though, I am not a disruptive editor. Believe whoever you want. It is your choice. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you. BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich
Two things I'd like to raise: First, the last edit Thepharoah17 made prior to posting this request is this from Dec. 6, which I won't characterize, but I think reviewing admins should read. Second, I think it would help to see a few examples from the past year where Thepharoah17 has resolved a content dispute with another editor, or at least engaged in discussion of content with another editor, to demonstrate that their approach has indeed changed from the approach that led to the TBAN. Levivich[block] 18:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- For convenience of those reviewing this and the next appeal, and maybe for Pharoah's benefit, let me quote WP:KURDS#Thepharoah17:
4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor,[1] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter.[2][3] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[4][5][6], pushing an anti-Kurd POV,[7][8][9][10] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State.[11]
- Passed 12 to 0 at 14:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Statements by uninvolved Administrators when posted at Arbitration Enforcement
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The topic ban was placed in February 2021 with a note that it can be appealed after 12 months. They were blocked for a week by El_C for violating the topic ban in March 2021 [12] which they unsuccessfully appealed here. They were block again in May 2021, this time for 1 month, following this AE thread. This clearly shows the claim that they have never been disruptive to be incorrect. Looking at their talk page, it seems there have been several issues relating to deletion since then but none have been in the area of the topic ban. However, this appeal is their first (and so far only) contribution to the project since December when they were indefinitely blocked on the French Wikipedia for Kurdistan-related disruption. All this together, and particularly the last two points, mean I'm leaning towards not accepting the appeal now - I'd prefer to see another 6 months of clearly good editing in other topic areas first. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia.
you are free to make positive contributions to Wikipedia about every other subject you can think of.If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you.
It's not about telling us things, the evidence of your contributions shows that you very much were disruptive. You need to show us, through your edits, that you no longer are.BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Thepharoah17 makes it clear that the basis for your topic ban was not just "reverting a sock puppet".- In order for your topic ban to be lifted you need to demonstrate three things:
- That you understand why your past behaviour was disruptive
- That you are now able to make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia without being disruptive
- That if the topic ban is lifted you wont return to the behaviour that resulted in the topic ban in the first place.
- Regarding point 1, not only have you not demonstrated this, it's becoming clear that you don't (or possibly don't want to) understand this; with no recent edits we have no evidence on which to evaluate point 2, but your edits from December do not make a good case for you. The lack of recent edits also make point 3 hard to judge, but your actions on the French Wikipedia after being topic banned here and your lack of understanding of why your actions were disruptive don't fill me with confidence. I'm now a firm decline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would oppose removing the tban at this time. Our first obligation is to the reader, then the editors contributing to those articles in a positive way. I don't see lifting the tban as helping either group, given the statements, prior blocks and insufficient time actually contributing in a constructive manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:10, 11 July 2022 (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.
Kurds and Kurdistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- This was copied from Arbitration Enforcement. I moved it here as it was ineligible for appeal at AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Kurds and Kurdistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I am not seeing the kinds of evidence that would lead me to over turn this topic ban per the concerns noted by Thryduulf and Dennis Brown. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Decline Actions speak louder than words, and there is ample evidence that lifting this ban would not be constructive. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Decline In light of the evidence, it will take months of good behavior and productive editing before I would consider any other result. - Donald Albury 20:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the best of times I think taking a break from Wikipedia (which by itself is not a bad thing) and upon returning immediately asking for the lifting of sanctions is problematic, but the editing before the break puts me firmly in the decline camp. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Decline Hasn't even edited in 6 months. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with my colleagues. I would say to Thepharoah17 that I appreciate their edits and this appeal, and the best way to demonstrate that you'll contribute positively in this area is by contributing positively in the many other areas you are already able to. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Clarification request: Eastern Europe
Initiated by Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Mhawk10
The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?
Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of WP:EE?
Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (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.
Eastern Europe: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Is there an actual issue at the moment where this would clarification would have an impact or is it an inquiry for a broader understanding (such as editors who might need an alert, talk pages where the notice would appear, etc)?