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 Lord Roem (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 12 July 2014 (→‎Motion: Haymaker: enacting motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic Motions 10 April 2024 0/0/0
[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
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Argentine History Motion (orig. case) 10 July 2014
Amendment request: Abortion Motion (orig. case) 1 July 2014

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!)

  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

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

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

Clarification request: Argentine History

Initiated by MarshalN20 Talk at 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Argentine History arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Topic Ban

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


Statement by MarshalN20

Hey! I'd like to take the article United States to featured status (current sandbox, with pictures and new lead section, is at User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). Over the past year I have also led two articles to featured status, the Peru national football team and Pisco Sour, and will soon have a third one with the Falkland Islands.

I was not sure if editing the US history section would be an issue, due to the topic ban that prevents me from editing Latin American history topics (non-cultural) prior to 1980. US history is tangentially related to Latin American history. David recommended me to take the question here in order to avoid any misunderstandings.

I'd like to work in this article to keep demonstrating my true value as an editor. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's worth clarifying that I will use the WP:SUMMARY rule when writing the history section. The only two major topics that I can currently think about (related to Latin America that I will certainly mention, in one or two sentences) are the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War. The Monroe Doctrine (and its related practices) and Cuban Missile Crisis will probably only be part of a larger sentence, the former related to hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and the latter to the Cold War. There certainly are more, but I currently cannot imagine going into detail into any of it.--MarshalN20 Talk 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The ed17

Speaking as a participant in the previous discussion, opposed to MarshalN20, I think that a limited exception for the United States article is appropriate. Nearly all of the history section will not infringe on areas that caused the ban. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It would be impossible to put together a complete history of the United States without touching multiple times on its interactions with Latin America. Many of those historical interactions would be before 1983, so those portions of the article would be encompassed by the ban. However, I would be willing to consider a limited exception for that particular article similar to the previous Falklands exemption, to be revoked in the event of misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Seraphimblade and would support an exemption to MarshalN20's topic ban in this case. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me three. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: MarshalN20 topic ban exemption

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed:

Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.
Support
  1. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Didn't this kind of thing used to be decided without having to have an actual motion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This seems pretty low risk to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With the expectation that the issues that led to the original decision will not recur on this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators
Floq-we make clarifications without motions, but this actually alters a previous decision from last year, hence the vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Abortion

Initiated by Haymaker (talk) at 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Abortion arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
[1]

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

Statement by Haymaker

I was edit-warring on this topic back in the day and was topic-banned by the above Arbitration Case. I'm not really interested in this topic any more and I have kept my nose clean for the last 2+ years. I would like to not have this decision hanging over my head and when I see cases of clear-cut vandalism on my watch-list, clean them up. I asked the admin who notified me of the topic ban and he said this was the place to go to ask about this. Haymaker (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NativeForeigner: All things being equal, I'd like to be out from underneath them all together. I noticed that in the past some users had sanctions lifted for a probationary period of time. If a full reprieve seems like a bridge too far at this time, would a probationary trial be possible? Haymaker (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thryduulf

There is a slight difference between reinstating a suspended topic ban (as proposed by Salvio) and topic banning again under discretionary sanctions if required (as proposed by WTT). That difference is that in the event of a topic ban being necessary in future, Haymaker will have had one ban under Salvio's proposal but two bans under WTT's. I am unaware that this would make any practical difference (and I think it unlikely the Haymaker will cause further trouble, making this is completely academic) but even more minor differences have turned out to have practical implications down the line. This is therefore just a heads-up for others to be aware the two proposals are not identical. I don't have an opinion on which I prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Moved a comment by Haymaker to their section from the arbitrator section below. Please make comments only in your own section, ping people if necessary. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted majority to indicate AGK being inactive on this item. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Are you asking for us to fully abandon it, or to make an exception for minor/trivial edits? NativeForeigner Talk 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:BANEX, reverting obvious vandalism is already an exception to a topic ban; that said, considering you have not been blocked for over two years and that, in general, I'm in favour of second chances, I'd be amenable to supporting the standard provisional suspension, i.e. the topic ban is lifted, but for a year it can be reimposed by any admin in the event of fresh misconduct within the original area of conflict. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support a provisional unban, like Salvio suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Haymaker

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

For reference, the current restrictions on Haymaker (talk · contribs) is:

10.1) Haymaker (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in one year.

Proposed:

The indefinite topic-ban of Haymaker (talk · contribs) from the abortion-related pages is lifted.
Support
  1. Proposed. I've left out the information regarding the probation as Abortion is still under discretionary sanctions so Haymaker can be re-topic banned with ease. I would support this if anyone wants to put it in though. Copy edits or changes welcome. WormTT(talk) 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. That's a good point about the discretionary sanctions. I'm willing to support this without the explicit probationary period. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. T. Canens (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Worth a try. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I understand Floquen's concerns but think that with the Abortion DS also in effect reinstating the topic ban will not be a difficult issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I understand and sympathize with every word Floq has written below, the discretionary sanctions already in place make the risk minimal. If Haymaker doesn't behave themselves in this area they'll be kicked back out of it soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per him and him and her and him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. For some reason the word "vacate" sticks in my craw, but at least I can recognize I'm being too picky and overcome it. Something more difficult to overcome is my cynicism about "I'm no longer interested in this topic, but this topic ban is hanging over my head"; we've seen that recently, and believed it, and grey areas were almost immediately explored when the topic ban was lifted. Looking at the sheer quantity of abortion-related edits before the case, and the 45 edits made in the last 2+ years since then, I find it too hard to believe that resuming editing in the abortion area is not your intention. I don't believe this topic ban is a significant hindrance to your editing other topics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments by arbitrators
  • I hate myself for becoming the type of person who asks this kind of question, but... is "vacated" really a good word for describing this? Doesn't that imply the previous decision was wrong? Would "lifted" (or something else) be better? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Supposedly inactive now but I can't help myself.) I think "terminated" would probably be the best word to use here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also my understanding that "vacated" indicates a defect in the thing being vacated, and that "terminated" works the best due to indefinite not meaning permanent. I've made the change; if anyone strongly disagrees feel free to revert me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...from abortion-related topics is terminated"? Can we keep trying? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not my place to re-word something I['m opposing, but I've changed it to "lifted", due to the unfortunate unintended double meaning (as someone noted in one of the mailing lists). Even "vacated" would be better than "terminated" here. Happy to be over-ruled with something better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point well-taken on the entirely inadvertent double meaning of terminate. (Compare Judge Posner's jibes at the off-found law-review phrase "Roe and its progeny.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=616697859"