Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requests for clarification and amendment[edit]

Amendment request: The Troubles[edit]

Initiated by The C of E at 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

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

Information about amendment request
  • The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed except in relation to sporting articles.

Statement by The C of E[edit]

This is an appeal for amendment for my Troubles restrictions. After almost 3 years under these restrictions, I have understood where I went wrong and apologise for my editing in that time. I have followed the restrictions and I am currently under a separate tban from DYK. I would like to ask if my sanction could be amended to clarify that editing sporting articles related to Ireland be permitted. The reason I ask is that I wish to be able to work mostly on underrepresented women's football in Ireland and I believe the ban as worded currently restricts me from doing so. I had previously done work in this area pre-ban in Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and a number of clubs such as Derry City Women. I no longer have DYK as an option so any work done would solely be for content creation and development of an area underrepresented and separate from politics. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I was going to let the debate happen naturally but I believe there might have been a little misunderstanding here. @Cabayi: I was put under the restrictions I am currently under for issues relating to pushing pro-unionist content, not nationalist. If anything, creating that Derry City article before the ban (which is a nationalist majority club as well as minimising the Stroke City terms in it) shows I am capable of treating things equally and the 3 years I have stayed away has given me the time to reflect that what I did was wrong and I would like to have the chance to prove I have changed. That's why I'm asking for the amendment to clarify that editing sports articles are permissible. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Cabayi: Even if the women's team has no political associations whatsoever being part of a club that founded pre-Troubles and the women's team being founded after that period but just so happens to share the contentious name of the city? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by OID[edit]

"the multiple declines of the DYK ban which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal)."

Putting aside the rather insulting reframing of the consensus process, that when the community has outright declined a ban appeal it is the communities fault for 'not moving past it'. It could be equally said that The C of E has not moved past the fact there is no community appetite to let them back into an area where they were extremely disruptive over an extended period of time. Also there is absolutely not more support in the 2023 appeal, given the similar level of support !votes and substantially more opposition compared to the previous appeal, indicating opposition has hardened over time, not softened. Had the closing statement accurately reflected the consensus in the 2023 appeal it should have said "There is consensus not to lift the ban" rather than "there is no consensus". The only way it could be argued there was more support is if you completely discounted any of the opposes or took some liberties with basic maths. This is 'I didnt get the answer I wanted from the community so now I am trying my luck with arbcom.' It should be declined as asked and answered. 3 years with a ban is 3 years of the community not having to deal with their crap. That is a topic ban working as intended. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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 Troubles: Clerk notes[edit]

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

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • I am tentatively leaning towards accepting, my main concern being the multiple declines of the DYK ban (July 2022, April 2023). which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal). That being said, I appreciate that The C of E has taken to asking us first rather than wait for someone to call them out on it, indicating that they realise it might be controversial and thus seeking approval rather than forgiveness. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Only in death, my apologies for the wording, I did not want to say "has not forgiven The C of E for their actions" as it did not sound right to me but clearly I chose a poor choice of alternate wording. "The community is not yet ready to accept that The C of E has changed" is likely a better way to phrase it. Regarding consensus, you are also correct, and I have no good answer for that particular blunder. Primefac (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have re-evaluated per the discussion and my thoughts on it below, and agree that it should be possible to maintain separation here without needing to formally amend the written topic ban. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I'm of two minds. On the one hand, looking at the history, there was a patter of pushing boundaries right up to the limit until CofE teetered over the edge. That sort of brinkmanship does not give me hope for the future, as the community is not great at dealing with that sort of grey area. However - I'm also aware that the majority of issues were at DYK, and ask CofE points out, they are tbanned there. More, the request is very specific, regarding sports and therefore might be a good place to show the understanding that they say they now have. Finally, we are three years down the line, so that's a positive too. At the moment, I'm leaning towards accepting a limited relaxation, but I'd like to hear more from the community before we do. WormTT(talk) 09:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After reviewing the other arbitrators thoughts, I would decline this request. Sport in general should not be covered to this topic ban, and I do not see the benefit of adding a tweak for sport. I would expect The C of E to ignore sections of articles related to the topic ban, which should be a small part of the articles in question. There will be some articles where it would be a large part, but given the number of sports articles (and potential sports articles) out there, I see no reason that The C of E should be focussed on them. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To be clear, the original ban was for trying to get a particular POV onto the main page through DYK, so the community not wanting to lift the DYK topic ban is material to me. One of the examples given in the appeal Derry City F.C. Women, is from the city whose (contentious) name C of E was trying to get on the main page in the AE where he was topic banned. It's not clear how well monitored the North Irish women's football topic area is, but I'd rather we not make that a test case. This topic ban came at the nexus of two issues: disruption related to The Troubles and disruption related to DYK. If the community is not willing to budge on its end (DYK ban) I do not feel comfortable undermining that consensus by weakening our end (Troubles ban). I'm not strongly opposed to loosening the sanction at some point, but doing it now, so soon after the community said no to lifting a related sanction, strikes me as imprudent to say the least. Wug·a·po·des 01:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I note, The C of E, that you have been editing at least one sports article related to Ireland since the restriction was put in place - British & Irish Lions. The wording of the restriction doesn't appear to cover such editing, though I understand your uncertainty, and your desire for clarification moving forward. The oddity, of course, is that by making this request, you may end up losing the access to editing sports articles related to Ireland which it appears to me you currently have. Having looked at those two articles you mention, which you created, Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and Derry City F.C. Women, I feel it would be a shame that you should end up being prevented from creating more such articles not though any misbehaviour, but merely by asking if you could do it. As these sporting articles appear to me to be unrelated to the issues which caused your ban, and indeed appear to me to be unrelated to your topic ban - and as it appears to me to be inappropriate to restrict someone from editing in an area they are currently not restricted from editing, and in which they have no history of problematic editing, indeed, have made uncontroversial edits fairly recently - then I vote to accept the amendment, which I see as a clarification of an existing situation rather than an actual adjustment. SilkTork (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Would we be willing, along the lines suggested by Izno below, to say that The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland as long as they do not relate to the exception area; and that The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should be able to assess themselves which articles they should stay away from, which includes grey areas (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it), and that the Committee doesn't need to make a formal amendment to the clause so this request can be closed? SilkTork (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If it is a statement and not an amendment, sure, if only to sate the folks who will say "all of Ireland = The Troubles" or expand "broadly construed" a little too broadly. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'm thinking of a close summary along the lines: "Provided the pages do not relate to the exception area area they are not allowed to edit, The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland. The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should assess themselves which pages they should stay away from, which includes grey areas such as pages related to Derry (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it)." If another arb agrees, then I'll close this request with that summary. No formal amendment, just a rough answer to the question. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The "exception area" was the proposed exception to the TBAN which is sports, so your sentence does not make sense. Izno (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I read that as "the area they are not allowed to edit" i.e. The Troubles, but I can see your point. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Recuse as the admin who implemeneted the consensus of AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am a decline due to the way sport and community are linked in Northern Ireland. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do we actually want to vote on this one? I see a mix of responses above. I think I'd be a decline for the requested amendment, but mostly along the lines that the user should be able to figure out which sporting articles, and which sections of articles, are inside and which outside the area covered by the ban, especially if he really has learned what went wrong to cause the topic ban. As Guerillero points out, sports were a particular issue to the Troubles, though apparently uncontroversial editing has been happening in the desired exception area as pointed out by SilkTork. Izno (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Decline Sport is interwoven with politics in this context, or at the least, the perception of politics. Derry City F.C. Women is not problematic but its name does reflect a nationalist take on the stroke city issue. Do I think The C of E is able to avoid the marbling in this particular chunk of beef, or that we should give license for him to try when the current restrictions have worked well? No. Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The C of E, I cited that article as an example of the mingling of sport & politics. Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: Eastern Europe[edit]

Initiated by Cinderella157 at 08:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Eastern Europe arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Cinderella157[edit]

A clarification as to "broadly construed" in respect to WP:ARBEE and Russia/Soviet Union. Does this capture articles about the Soviet Union and Russia in a global context for example: the Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Soviet–Afghan War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia (central Europe) and like?

Based on comments, this clearly encompasses Eastern Bloc European countries not otherwise considered Eastern European. Does this also extend to the lands of former Soviet Republics also outside Eastern Europe (ie Asia) in the Soviet era/Soviet collapse, on the basis that the Soviet Union is considered Eastern European but is also trans-continental?

Rosguill, please clarify CPC v CCP. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Context clarified by BilledMammal that they are edit warring over which term should be used on EnWP. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

I would say that anything to do with the Warsaw Pact is definitely within the scope, but the other topics you listed are not as they are not related to Russian/Soviet activities/policies/etc in relation to eastern Europe. the table in my comment here is a useful but unofficial guide to what counts as Eastern Europe. A simpler (but equally unofficial) rule of thumb would be that if the area concerned is in Europe (in the relevant context) and was on the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain then it counts as Eastern Europe (although there will be exceptions both ways). Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rosguill[edit]

How much disruption do we actually see for Warsaw Pact/Eastern Bloc topics outside of geographical Eastern Europe? Anecdotally, most of the EE disruption we see relates to ethnic disputes, and I'm not sure we see much Eastern Bloc or Communist Party-related disruption outside of the flashpoint of Mass killings by communist governments and CPC vs. CCP SPAs. Unless there's evidence of widespread disruption, I think we can limit the CT regime to just topics geographically limited to Eastern Europe (although I would include Czechoslovakia in that region a la Thryduulf). I think expanding the regime to cover Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea and other Soviet-bloc countries, or Soviet interventions in other regions that did not significantly affect ethnic relations inside the USSR and Warsaw Pact, would be unnecessary. Although n.b., Soviet-Afghan War would be covered by the A in IPA (and, somewhat amusingly, our Armenia-Azerbaijan CT regime is arguably redundant with EE by virtue of Azerbaijan's location). signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]