Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 20 March 2023 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles | none | (orig. case) | 24 March 2023 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment[edit]
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 sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions).
- 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: American politics 2[edit]
| There is a rough consensus of participating arbitrators that a set date rather than a rolling date to define the scope of the American Politics contentious topic area is the preferred approach. There is a further rough consensus that 1992 is currently an appropriate date. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initiated by Interstellarity at 17:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Interstellarity[edit]In 2021, I proposed that the AP2 dates were changed from post-1932 to post-1992. One idea that hasn't got a lot of attention is Valereee's idea that the years that American politics be sanctioned to be the last 25 years which would mean that the starting year that AP would be sanctioned would automatically change year after year. I'm not saying whether we should or should not use 25 years as a basis of at what point the sanctions start. I'd be open to other possibilities such as 30 years and 20 years, maybe 10 years. I think that with the idea of having the year automatically change from year to year, we won't have to revisit what should be covered in the current CT procedure. To give you an idea of what I am talking about, right now it is 2023. 25 years ago would be 1998. This means that when 2024 rolls around, the starting year that the CT would be 1999 and so on. Of course, if something falls out of the range we choose, it can be sanctioned if need be. I hope that the community will be willing to consider whether this will be a good idea. The other case that has it which is Iranian politics has a starting year of 1978 so we potentially talk about adjusting the dates there if need be.
Statement by Valereee[edit]I'm open to the general concept but I'm not sure this is as much about years as it is about what was happening. It might be good to be able to eliminate 99% of the politics of 1998 from inclusion, but we'd certainly have to immediately make the Clintons a contentious topic. I suspect that in ~2033 we'd have to add Obama and in ~2041, Trump. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion[edit]Clarity in terms of what articles fall under a topic area is one of the most important aspects to consider when defining it (probably the most important aspect.) Having one that changes automatically year after year therefore seems exceptionally undesirable. Would it tick over based on the new year? Based on the date of the AP2 arbcom case? How do we define the year when something occurs? This is in theory already an issue, but it's much less of one when the threshold is not a moving target - the question only has to be answered once, and only for things right on the edge, whereas a moving threshold would ensure that it is a constant issue. Would we use a bot to automatically remove templates for restrictions placed on AP2 articles that tick over the limit? And would the bot even be able to accurately determine when to remove such templates? On top of this, I see no benefits whatsoever to doing this. The relevance of something to current AP2 focus is not directly a function of time; it's a function of the current way politics breaks down and which issues are hot-button within it. I don't think any automated system will be able to tell us when the Clintons (clearly one of the main things keeping us at the 1992 threshold) are no longer controversial enough to require AP2 restrictions - that will have to be done the old-fashioned way, by having humans consider it with their human brains via an amendment request, looking over the logs for which articles attract disruption, etc. Finally, the amendment request before was not that onerous; the next one will be even more lightweight because it's been done before and therefore won't attract as much conversation and because we have precedent for what sort of data and arguments to consider when setting a new threshold. I feel like the complexities of an automatically-moving window are going to waste far more editor time and energy than a simple amendment request that is likely to only come up once a decade or so. --Aquillion (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) 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. American politics 2: Clerk notes[edit]
American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]
|
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles[edit]
| Clarification question has been answered. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initiated by ScottishFinnishRadish at 17:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 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 ScottishFinnishRadish[edit]I invoked WP:PIA's 30/500 to stop disruptive editing on Jimmy Carter where a new account was repeatedly removing the Israel/Palestine section. The general sanctions state
Statement by Nableezy[edit]SFR, you can use the relatedcontent=yes flag in the edit notice and make a note with hidden text around the section that this is the section that it applies to instead of protecting the page. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice|relatedcontent=yes}} would do it. 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. Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes[edit]
Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]
|