Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic | Motions | 10 April 2024 | 0/0/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: The Rambling Man | none | (orig. case) | 12 September 2018 |
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: The Rambling Man
Initiated by The Rambling Man at 16:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- The Rambling Man and George Ho interaction banned
- Removal of IBAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by The Rambling Man
No need for a ban when we don't interact, haven't interacted, one of us is mainly retired, and there's not one iota of evidence that any threat to Wikipedia or any undue incivility will occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Worm That Turned no, as I stated clearly, this is just to clear the slate, neither of us have interacted, least of all negatively, for as long as I can recall. This isn’t supposed to be a big deal but thanks to Arbcom bureaucracy it’s no doubt going to become a complete timesink. What is the benefit to keeping this IBAN in place please? I see that reading your post you see these bans as being punitive. If you other George or I were to step out of line, (something which has not happened s for a year or more?) I’m sure we’d both be sanctioned. This IBAN is just an Arbcom device with no current real purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, well, given the statement made by the other party, I suggest this request is now moot and should be speedy closed (although it should be clarified explicitly that the last interaction occurred more than a year ago). Cheers, and thanks for the personal attacks on the way out the door. At least we got a contribution from one of the sleeping Arbs! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Worm That Turned no, it's fine. You've made about the same number of contributions to improving this encyclopedia in a year as I have in the last four days, but you're still charged with enforcing the punitive bans despite that. It's fine. I've already made a request of Arbcom that the other punitive increase in ban length without appeal be allowed to be discussed on Wikipedia, I hope you'll contribute then with such enthusiasm. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by George Ho
I'm not retired as TRM asserted, though I have spent less time and energy on this project than I used to. Also, I see no point on appealing the IBAN, considering that he and I were blocked last year for IBAN violation. Since then, I've not interacted with him at all and have no plans to do so at the moment. Furthermore, considering the way he interacts with other editors who are not his friends, not to mention two other AE blocks last year, and another IBAN slapped on him last year, I found myself compelled to leave the IBAN intact for now. George Ho (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Username
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.
The Rambling Man: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse. ~ Rob13Talk 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I generally believe that interaction bans are an extension of "it's a big encyclopedia, get on with something else", and once placed I like to see a good reason to remove them - people sometimes do not get along and if they need an enforceable remedy to keep the peace, then so be it. As such, I'm not prepared to accept "we don't interact" as a reason as, quite simply, that's the point. Can you tell me, has anything changed? Is there an area you'd like to be editing but cannot due to this interaction ban? Do you have any other good reason for it to be removed? I'd also like to hear from George Ho as to whether he'd like it removed. WormTT(talk) 17:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I can understand wanting to clear the slate, as being under sanctions is not something I'd enjoy. However, as I hoped to make clear, I personally consider interaction bans one of the least stigmatised restrictions upon editing and as such am generally reluctant to remove them without good reason. I can think of situations where I'm happy to lift, but they generally include both editors wanting it lifted and having a plan going forward. For the time being, I'll wait for George Ho and other input. WormTT(talk) 18:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)