Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 3 January 2012 (→‎Request for clarification: Wikipedia:EEML: archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Request for clarification: Jimmy Wales' powers none none 31 December 2011
Request for clarification: User:Timotheus Canens none none 29 December 2011
Request for clarification: Abortion motion none none 12 December 2011

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Jimmy Wales' powers

Initiated by ASCIIn2Bme (talk) at 02:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by ASCIIn2Bme

Does ArbCom still recognize the principle it set forth in [1] where it stated that "Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so"?

@Lord Roem: I assure you that it has practical implications. And the ArbCom policy enumerates some powers that Jimbo has (e.g. as ultimate appeals instance), but doesn't say those are all of his powers as founder. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LR (2): Like [2] (scroll for the 2nd reply green chunk/reply) and [3]. And the putative RfC is about a future delegation of powers, which strongly implies that Jimbo currently has certain powers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Ok, I guess this shall remain a mystery in the sum of knowledge of the present ArbCom (unlike the 2006 one.) Happy New Year! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hersfold: Thanks for a the info on administrative actions. Assuming [hypothetically] that Jimbo decided to undo the closure of a RfC performed by another administrator, would that count as an administrative action appealable to ArbCom? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond my ken: From the pink header: "Use this section to request further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision." I don't see where it says that requests need be limited to "results". And principles in the final decision are results of a case anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lord Roem

I do not think this Request for Clarification is properly made. This is likely an attempt to begin a Wikipedia governance debate at RfArbitration at its worst or an abstract question at its best.

Jimbo has stated in posts on his talk page in the past few days that he plans to open a community RfC later this year on a process to transition away from his traditional powers. It is this community-driven process that should be used to discuss such important issues, with an eye towards reaching consensus, rather than this attempt at "Clarification".

Lastly, I would direct my friend to the new Arbitration Policy which may provide the clarification he so desires. Best Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ASCIIn2Bme - practical implications in what context? Why exactly are you raising this issue now? At the least, I'm very curious to know. Lord Roem (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

(1) The question of what Jimbo can and cannot do is not within ArbCom's remit.

(2) This request is in itself improper, in that it does not ask for clarification of the result of a case, but seeks to force a discussion on one of the many findings involved in the case. There's no indication I can find that such a purpose is legitimate in a "Request for Clarification".

I urge the Committee to reject this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: The statement of principle from 2006 was made in the course of determining the outcome of a case. There is no case pending at this time which requires a similar determination, so no need for "clarification". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

I don't think anyone here believes Arbcom can outright rescind or really affect Jimbo's powers. That 2006 principle was an affirmation of the reality of the project at that time, and IMO what is being asked here is just a simple, similar statement on the reality of 2011. Consider an analogy to a newspaper that endorses a candidate, then down the road withdraws that endorsement.

To his credit, I do not believe that he would even try to "make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so", per what is laid out in here. Perhaps you could just issue a clarification along the lines of "The 2006 principle has been rendered moot by WP:JIMBO".

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The Arbitration Committee does not govern this project, and it would be a gross overstep of our role to rule on Jimmy's role on Wikipedia at this point. I will therefore not comment at greater length on this issue, aside from recommending that, if it is to be brought up anywhere, it is not here. AGK [•] 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I don't believe that this is an appropriate location for this discussion. While the principle you note was set down in an Arbitration case, it is important to note that the case took place almost six years ago; much has changed since then, which the community, Committee, and Jimbo are all aware of. Given that there is an upcoming RfC on the matter, I'd highly recommend you raise this there and see what feedback you get from the community on the matter. At present, the Arbitration policy holds that any administrative action by Jimbo (blocks, etc.) can be appealed to the Committee (as with the ban appeal currently being heard), however it does not mention his ability to declare policy by fiat. I realize this is a bit of a non-answer, however I don't see that it's really something the Committee is best able to respond to just now; at any time, the community may, as a whole, change policy in such a way that makes previous arbitration principles obsolete, and it's very likely that's going to happen in the near future. Making any official statement now could adversely affect that process, which - speaking for myself at least - is probably best avoided. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck a portion of the above, it was pointed out to me I'd misread a section of the policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a huge question, which I'll do my best to answer succinctly.
    1. Part of the answer lies in the Arbitration policy, where it says: The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced.... While the Committee will typically take into account its earlier decisions when deciding new cases, previous decisions do not create binding precedent. As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions will be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context (cf. Arbitration policy#Policy and precedent).
      So, from this I conclude that as ArbCom neither creates policy nor creates precedent, the 2006 finding is neither policy nor precedent.
    2. The next question is whether the committee has jurisdiction over Jimmy's conduct: there is no "Head of State" immunity in the arbitration policy and Jimmy has been a party to a number of cases. However, it is possible to conceive of actions where he is explicitly acting in a WMF capacity and, in these instances, the committee explicitly has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff... (cf. Arbitration policy#Jurisdiction). For transparency, such actions are usually made from an account clearly flagged as a WMF one (cf: User:Moonriddengirl and her WMF account, User:Mdennis (WMF)).;
    3. Finally, appeals of remedies in arbitration cases may be appealed to, and heard by, Jimmy unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions (cf. Arbitration policy#Appeal of decisions).
    So, in a nutshell, this is not the place to raise a complicated constitutional issue. Perhaps wait for the upcoming RFC on Jimmy and Governance?  Roger Davies talk 07:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if we reiterated that statement today, a large portion, if not an outright majority, of the community would reject it as us making policy about making policy. Jimbo's role has evolved since the time that was written, and the community (not Arbcom) has assumed more responsibility for self-governance. This is a very good example why we fretted over the wording of handling precedents in the arbitration policy: we want to provide the greatest level of consistency, commensurate with the fact that the encyclopedia, its policies, and governing structures are all continuously evolving. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the Committee's responsibility is outlined here, which doesn't include general discussion on Jimbo's role as policy maker. That would be for the community as a whole to discuss. It would however be within our remit to examine Jimbo's behaviour, which would include the scenario of Jimbo edit warring over policy. It's worth noting that the Committee deals with conduct not policy; and in dealing with conduct incidents the Committee may make comments and observations on matters (such as consensus, guidelines, policies) related to the incident which exist at the time, though as matters change over time, these observations may become outdated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:Timotheus Canens

Initiated by brewcrewer (yada, yada) at 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Brewcrewer

User: Timotheus Canens is a former administrator[4] but continues to act as an administrator at AE, by for example lifting topic bans,[5][6] editing the Uninvolved Administrator section, and proposing bans.[7][8] Today I asked him to stop,[9] but he continued to act as an admin subsequent to my request[10] and refused my request.[11]

Firstly, I would like to clarify whether a topic ban validly enacted as part of AE enforcement is considered vacated when it was "removed" by a former admin if the former admin originally placed the restriction when he was an administrator?

Secondly, and this is not really to clarify anything, I would like ARBCOM to make clear that former admins should not be acting as if they are admins at AE. I would move TC's comments to the appropriate section, but wanted to confirm with ARBCOM first. Thank you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Fozzie. I don't think it is much of a concern that someone will claim that since the topic ban was not technically vacated, the editor under question is editing in violation of the ban. However it should be of concern when a former admin (even if good standing) is acting like an admin. No explanation is necessary. There is no good reason for Timotheus Canens to undertake admin actions or act like an admin when he isn't one. If he wants to act in an administrative capacity let him regain his tools (which I don't oppose). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment. Timotheus Canens has reacquired his "bit" on his main account[12] so I guess this issue is now stale. I would however like to urge TC to avoid this type melodramatic behavior. Giving up the tools, acting like an admin without the tools, refusing to stop when asked to, then asking back for the tools a few weeks later, blanking his own talk page[13],and then changing his mind again a day later.[14] We don't want an admin who appears to spend the majority of his WP-activity at the AE noticeboard to exhibit the drama-queen type of behavior he himself should be adept at dealing with at AE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

This was discussed last year on WT:Arbitration, I believe. I'm going from memory, but I think the conclusion is that administrators without the admin bit shouldn't be doing anything at AE. With that said, I think that lifting one's own bans is entirely reasonable and can/should be done by the user even if they don't have the admin bit. NW (Talk) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the discussion. Maybe someone else remembers what I'm talking about though? I definitely remember Kirill stating something during the conversation, but that's it. NW (Talk) 06:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Some clarification on this would be nice. When I saw Tim commenting in the uninvolved admin section I actually thought he had returned to his admin duties as did an admin who apparently acted based on that perception. Several other admins also responded to him in that section as though he was just another admin suggesting sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

Speaking as another recently resigned admin, I think you have to be very careful in how you act if you remain active in areas where you previously acted as an admin. For example, I don't think it would be reasonable for me to close any DRVs that don't require the bit as the convention is that admins should close DRVs. Nevermind the fact that I have closed 100s of the darn thing. By the same token, if a user asked me to review a previous AFD close, I don't think it would be very userfriendly to refuse to engage because you don't have the bit. Personally, I think the situation is like an arb who is leaving the committee, they are allowed to participate in cases that they have already been involved in. To me, this suggests that its reasonable for Tim to act as an admin-emeritus in cases where they have imposed sanctions and that they can by virtue of the fact that they are reviewing their own action and have resigned in good odour remove a topic ban they imposed. Beyond this Tim shouldn't be involved at AE in any kind of quasi admin role. Spartaz Humbug! 07:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TC

I had always taken the view that administrators who turned in the mop in uncontroversial circumstances are still admins, just temporarily with the bit flipped off. Since they could receive the bit back by simple request at BN, I don't see the point of insisting on that empty formality.

In this particular case, I am currently traveling (you can check that out with a quick CU if you want), so I have been (and will be) editing from my alternate non-admin account. I intended to ask for my tools back when I return to my usual location.

If you really insist on the empty ritual of me asking for the tools that I would not be using anyway until I return from my trip, fine. I just don't see the point of it. T. Canens (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scott MacDonald

I agree with AGK that the sysop bit is binary - you either have an account with it, or without it. Accounts without the bit can't do a few things that accounts with the bit can do, and we don't (and shouldn't) attempt to differentiate between accounts without the bit.

My problem is, and where I think the confusion lies here, is that I dislike there being anything that an account without the bit CAN TECHNICALLY DO, but isn't actually allowed to do. That creates a status differential, rather than a differential of technical ability. And it is what causes the problem when someone has a right to the status, but lacks the bit. It is why I detest the practice of people saying "only an admin can do this". If only an admin can do this (i.e. bit needed) then this shouldn't need said - and it is technically the non-admin can't possibly do it (whether they are allowed to or not). I also hate the practice of people marking stuff as "non-admin close". A close is a close, it is either a good one or a bad one, who did it doesn't matter.

If adminship is "no big deal", then it only matters at the "being trusted with some tools" level. We don't do rights of status and access beyond that. So, in short, I agree with AGK that we don't want to try to work out who, that doesn't have the bit, still has the status of admin. But I also think that the user had every right to do exactly whatever he did at AE. The only question is - is he clued enough to do it, and did he do it right.


Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Considering it was the thought of the committee that this was a break, and that Timotheus could get the mop back on request, I don't have too much of a problem with it (especially since he was simply reversing an action he took while he was an AE admin), but I will wait for further comments/statements. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An administrator who gave up the tools non-controversially can request them back at any time; thus, if Tim were to encounter something in an AE request that he felt needed immediate administrative action, he could, in theory, request the tools back and take care of the matter himself, as an admin. If he then chose to, he could immediately resign the tools again, although speaking as a crat it would be a bit annoying. ;-) Barring any sort of incident that would bar him access to the tools, I don't see an issue with this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add, this is now somewhat moot, as Tim has requested (and been given) his rights back. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must take a more severe line. The administrator right is sometimes called 'the bit' because it is a binary assignment: an account either is an administrator, or is not. I think there are far more serious issues on Wikipedia, but nevertheless my view is that to allow this kind of thing is a slippery slope: if former administrators can enforce arbitration decisions, we then have to consider in each case whether they stepped down "under a cloud" and how likely they are to have their sysop right returned. In the past, determining whether a sysop resigned without controversy has not been simple, and ideally such a discussion would be reserved for the resysopping process - not extended to every enforcement thread the former sysop contributes to. Frankly, the enforcement process is complicated enough without adding the headache of checking up on whether an account that doesn't have the sysop flag is in good standing; the issue also complicates the process for first-time users of the enforcement process, which is suboptimal. While I agree with Hersfold that the opinion of T. Canens (whom I regard as a thoughtful and useful user, not that this changes the situation we are in) would be useful in appeals or amendments of his previous enforcement actions, I request that he abstains from taking new enforcement actions unless or until he is resysopped (which I hope he is in the near future). We don't need the headache, nor more scope for AE wikilawyering. AGK [•] 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mind is along Spartaz's thought process, I don't have an issue with Tim revoking something he imposed when he had the bit, but I would support a motion clarifying that AE remedies can only be imposed by flagged admins. AE is contentious enough, and the issues of whether an editor is an admin in good standing yet lacking the flag can only be unnecessary drama. (And personally, I think if you don't have the flag, you don't do things limited by rule to admins, as these style sanctions are.) Courcelles 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SirFozzie and Courcelles; I don't see a problem here. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....aaaand this is rendered moot now by Timotheus Canens getting the bit back, so I guess it's time to close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from this terse and inappropriate response to a comment, Timotheus Canens has behaved in the best interest of Wikipedia, so I don't see there's an issue with him. The clarification request is, however, interesting in that it has pointed to a grey area not just in AE, but across Wikipedia: how welcome are editors in good standing to do actions that don't require the admin tools, but which require good judgement? Generally it appears to me that we work with an understanding that if a discussion/action is straightforward it can be closed/done by any editor in good standing, if the discussion is controversial and/or has a big impact we prefer an admin to close it as an admin has the consensus of the community to make actions that require good judgement and understanding, if the discussion is mega (such as the recent verifiability discussion) we look to three admins to make the close. If there is some uncertainty about an action the action can be questioned or challenged, and if needed it can be looked at again; we have informal (and sometimes formal as in DRV) procedures in place for this. If in any particular area, or with any particular editor, there are repeated concerns, the community tends to resolve the issue, or bring them to ArbCom. As this is a one-off (and fairly unique) situation it is too soon for either the community or ArbCom to be looking into it. Is an admin's judgement impaired because they have temporarily relinquished the tools in order to take a break? No, I don't think so. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Abortion motion

Initiated by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by HJ

procedure notes: first, I'm not sure who (if anybody) needs to be notified of this but I will leave a link from the discussion at WT:ACN and will be happy to notify any editor suggested if necessary ; second, I've never filed a request for clarification before, so guidance (and patience!) from arbitrators or clerks on any formatting errors would be appreciated.

This request pertains to the December 2011 motion (permanent link) which amended remedy 1 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion.

Having discussed the matter with arbitrators, predominantly on WT:ACN, it seems that this motion is ambiguous in its intent and I fear that what may be clearly implied to administrators currently working in the abortion topic area may not be as obvious to others and may not be retained in institutional memory. The current wording of the motion suggests that administrators may semi-protect articles related to abortion (an option already allowed to them under the Protection Policy) and that administrators may only semi-protect abortion-related articles for a maximum of three years.

Without wishing to speak for the committee, I believe the intent of the motion was to:

  • Encourage administrators to apply a lower threshold for semi-protection of abortion-related articles and in particular their talk pages—of which protection is normally discouraged by the protection policy.
  • Authorise administrators to pre-emptively protect particular abortion-related articles which are likely to suffer from sustained disruption with potential consequences beyond Wikipedia.
  • Provide administrators with the authority of acting under an arbitration remedy in the event that another administrator takes exception to a protection that would not be in "normal" circumstances.

I would also suggest that any amended motion should make clear that uninvolved administrators working in the abortion topic area still have the option of protecting articles under the provisions of the protection policy and that this motion is supplemental. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Coren, Fozzie: I disagree. It may be obvious to you and to those who followed the case closely what you mean, but to somebody who doesn't fall into those categories, all you've done is said that admins can protect abortion-related articles for three years. you haven't told us why that might be desirable, you haven't said anything about the pre-emptive protection which Roger Davies suggested was an important part of the motion, and your assumption that nobody would take this as meaning that it supersedes normal procedures would seem to be flawed, judging by this log entry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

First, I'd like to thank HJ for initiating this request. As will be evident from the WT:ACN discussion, I believe that clarifying the reasoning behind this decision and its intent is highly desirable. I recognise that comments below indicate that (at least) Coren and SirFozzie do not see a need for a motion to clarify the semi-protection issue in the abortion area (broadly defined) but I submit that their reasoning is flawed. As I understand it, the suggestion is that no clarification is needed as the remedy is already clear. I have no doubt that it is clear from their point of view, but the issue is whether it is clear from a non-ArbCom member's perspective. As you may know, I work as an academic. When I submit a paper for consideration by a journal I expect to have some issues raised where I believe the manuscript is clear and I need to remind myself that I *know* what I meant and I have to accept that the reviewers are better placed to judge whether a point is unclear. Please, try to step back and ask not whether the remedy is clear to you but rather whether the remedy can reasonably be interpreted in way(s) that you did not intend. Ask yourself how an unusual - or even extreme - remedy with no rationale presented might be seen by those who do not have limitless faith in ArbCom. Truly, a remedy contemplating semi-protection for three years with no accompanying explanatory finding and no rationale is deficient. I know from Risker's explanation that there is very good reason for empowering agressive semi-protection but had I not read that user talk page post I could have easily been wondering what you were thinking. I can easily imagine how the remedy could be seen as ArbCom over-reaching. This remedy will be in force for three years. There could easily be administrators applying it in eighteen months who have yet to even join the project; surely suggesting that you pass a motion to provide a rationale and to clarify what actions you are authorising is not an unreasonable request. EdChem (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I really don't see a point to further amendments or motions about this. Your reading above is pretty much on the nose, but that's also the straightforward plain reading of the amended remedy as currently written; and there is no way to write a motion in a manner that cannot hypothetically be misinterpreted or wikilawyered around.

    As far as I know, no arbitration remedy has ever been (seriously) read or implied to mean that they replaced the normal process unless it explicitly states that it does; certainly nobody interprets discretionary sanctions to mean that normal blocks or processes do not still apply, for instance. — Coren (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Coren. Anyone working in the area doesn't need another formal amendment to understand this is what we mean. SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a comment by SirFozzie on the mailing list, I think we could make a note on the talk page of the case, and include a diff about this discussion. However, I agree that a formal amendment isn't needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the amendment should be read alongside the remedy, in which case it allows admins at their discretion to semi-protect for up to three years certain abortion related articles which they feel may be or are vulnerable, and to do so under ArbCom sanction, logging the action. Other forms of protection, such as full protection or indefinite semi are still available, and can be challenged, though a three year semi-protection done under ArbCom sanction shouldn't be undone without going through the procedures outlined in WP:AE. The amendment removes the necessity of all the related articles being protected regardless of vulnerability, while giving alert admins the liberal power to move swiftly to prevent a problem before it happens. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=469349992"