Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/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:
- 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 |
---|---|---|---|
Clarification request: Scientology | none | (orig. case) | 27 May 2016 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Scientology
Initiated by Elvey at 01:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Elvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
No user accounts to notify. IPs are ephemeral.
Statement by Elvey
The ruling states in relevant part (bolding mine):
8) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:
- (A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;
Despite this, edits to an article under discretionary sanctions as part of this case (and its talk page) are being made largely from a half dozen or so IPs, and the IPs are all on the same UK mobile ISP (except for one from a UK fixed line ISP) per an admin.
Clarification requested on this point : I read the ruling as saying editing needs to be from a single user account, not multiple anonymous IPs. Is it thus proper at this point to file for AE? (Why or why not?)
I think it is but am being cautious. It seems to me the appropriate enforcement action is simply to apply semi protection to the two pages. No need to deal with individual IPs. Support would be diffs from the page histories, though the page histories themselves are very readable for this purpose. There's a DS notice at the top of the talk page.
I'm refraining from characterizing the nature or motivation of edits or person(s); you are strongly urged do the same, so this can remain succinct and be dispatched quickly.
- Follow-up: Thanks for the clarification and action, Doug Weller, Courcelles, and Callanecc. Part 2: As I noted above, there are anonymous edits to the talk pages too. The prohibition seems to clearly extend to the talk pages, per the "or discussions" language that I quote above, so I suggest that appropriate enforcement action here too is that these be semi'd as well: Talk:Richard_de_Mille, Talk:Scientology Talk:Carlos_Castaneda, with the rationale being something like: Per WP:ARBSCI.
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.
Scientology: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion
- To me it reads as a fairly clear prohibition against anonymous editing. Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, noting that Scientology is indefinitely semi-protected. I've done that for this article. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Courcelles and Doug. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)