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 L235 (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 21 January 2017 (→‎Motion: Mathsci: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Race and intelligence Motion (orig. case) 1 January 2017
Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 16 January 2017
Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition none (orig. case) 21 January 2017

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment


Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Mathsci at 06:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified_by_motion_(April_2016)
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
  • No other parties are involved.
Information about amendment request
That the topic ban imposed in April 2016 be replaced by the voluntary topic ban adopted in August/December 2010:

Statement by Mathsci

During my appeal last year, Doug Weller corresponded with me about my voluntary topic ban from this area. It had been in force since August 2010 and has been adhered to. All restrictions were removed in December 2010, on the initiative of Newyorkbrad, but my voluntary ban stayed in force. I have not edited in this area since July 2010. Since then, encouraged by the arbitration committee, I have helped administrators and checkusers on and off wiki with sockpuppetry in this topic area. That is still happening.

I would prefer to return to the position adopted in December 2010 if possible. The topic ban, which I was first asked about in an email from Courcelles, might give administrators the wrong impression about my editing history, i.e. that I have edited wikipedia with ideological prejudices. That seems to have happened once already.

I would therefore like the phrase "This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban" to be struck from the motion, thus returning to the status quo of my voluntary topic ban.

I am completely happy with the rest of the current phrasing, which was modified from the original email proposal. This request is independent of and does not concern any interaction bans. Mathsci (talk)

@Mkdw:: Thanks for replying. In answer to your query, I would be quite happy for all mention of a topic ban to be removed from the motion. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee formulated the original version of the "topic ban by mutual consent" in August 2010 (the original case). In November 2010 Newyorkbrad suggested here that my editing restrictions be lifted [1]. I immediately replied:[2] "Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned on this, I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area." That is what I have informally called a "voluntary topic ban". Nobody asked me to do it. The "topic ban by mutual consent" was lifted on 17 December 2010.[3] As Kirill Lokshin correctly points out, the "topic ban by mutual consent" was enforceable during the period 24 August—17 December 2010 when it was in effect. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

I'm quite confused about this distinction between a voluntary topic ban and a "standard" topic ban. One may voluntarily agree to an unblock condition, but once the unblock is made, that condition is no longer voluntary. This restriction should either remain unchanged or be lifted entirely. If this editor has been as helpful as he says he has been for this many years without issue, I'm inclined to support lifting the restriction entirely. ~ Rob13Talk 08:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've had no movement on this for a while, but everyone who's commented so far seems to be fine with lifted the topic ban. It would be ideal to close this in that direction soon so as not to leave the editor hanging for longer than the two weeks they already have been. ~ Rob13Talk 16:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified_by_motion_(December_2010) reads: "Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately." So if above Mathsci requests "That the topic ban imposed in April 2016 be replaced by the voluntary topic ban adopted in August/December 2010" (emphasis added) I'm not sure whether they intend to observe a (binding/voluntary) avoidance of the topic, or the December 2010 termination decision (which holds no commitment whatsoever to avoid the topic).

Mathsci's commitment to indefinite voluntary topic bans can be illustrated as follows: in August 2016 Mathsci committed to "As I also wrote in the request [i.e.: "At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely"], I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page". Mathsci resumed editing the 2016 Nice attack page and its talk page in November ([4], [5]). Their edits to the mainspace article and its talk page in November-December are entirely constructive and unproblematic afaics – only illustrating the "indefinite" timeframe being translated to less than four months (also without prejudice where and when Mathsci may have obtained permission to shorten the "indefinite" part of their voluntary avoidance of the topic).

The discussion of Mathsci's amendment request appears largely semantic thus far, if you ask me: translating it into a proposal free of such side-tracking semantics:

Rescind the

The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban.

part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified_by_motion_(April_2016)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • @Mathsci: Is there any particular reason why you're asking for it to be changed to a "voluntary" topic ban as opposed to it having the ban lifted in its entirety? It seems counter-intuitive to me for the ban remain in place but changed to voluntary if you believe it's still required. Mkdw talk 06:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoing Mkdw's question above. What is the point of maintaining a voluntary topic ban when it cannot be enforced? I would think we would either leave the topic ban as is, or remove it entirely. If removed, you would naturally be free to avoid that area if you wished. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original 2010 decision does not use the term "voluntary"; rather, the remedy we adopted was that "Mathsci has consented to a binding topic ban from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" (emphasis mine). There's no reason why version of the topic ban would not have been fully enforceable under the standard enforcement provisions adopted in the case. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it hasn't been perfectly smooth sailing since Mathsci was unbanned, none of the issues that have arisen had anything to do with this topic ban, so I'd just as soon get rid of it. Of course Mathsci can continue to ignore this topic to his heart's content afterwards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to grant this request to have the topic ban removed in its entirety. I trust Mathsci would continue to use good judgement and avoid areas of their own free volition. Mkdw talk 07:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see my username mentioned twice in the filing party's request, but frankly I have forgotten the details of that discussion from more than six years ago, so if anyone has been waiting for me to chime in on this, please don't. I don't have a strong view on whether Mathsci's commitment to avoid this topic should continue to be formalized through a topic-ban or not, nor am I certain exactly how it matters, except perhaps symbolically. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Mathsci

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Thanks to BU Rob13 for the reminder about this ARCA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments above. Mkdw talk 20:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Euryalus (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my comments above. I hope to see Mathsci's username in the future in mainspace and not on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 15:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Article titles and capitalisation 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

This isn't about any parties in particular. While Thryduulf is mentioned (and pinged), I make no allegations about the admin's judgement or actions (I agree with his scope determination, though not with his desire to apply it to the party at the ANI in question.)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Please clarify whether WP:ARBATC's discretionary sanctions rule (which may need to be clarified) applies to all discussions about "the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed" including WP:Requested moves discussions or not. I think that they must, since these are the distributed locus of the vast majority of title and style disputes on Wikipedia, as well as of most of the aspersions cast and other incivility about those things. The majority of {{DS/alert|at}} templates I've delivered have been in response to AGF, NPA, CIVIL, and ASPERSIONS problems in RMs.

Arb Thryduulf at ANI very recently said he would, if not INVOLVED, have discretionarily sanctioned someone for alleged RM-related disruption, under ARBATC specifically. However, I'm also aware of at least one previous case or ARCA in which it was strongly argued but perhaps not formally decided that RM was somehow exempt from ARBATC.[a] I would urge that ARBATC's broad construal of scope include RM, or there was little point in enacting it. There's very little disputation that would trigger ARBATC at places like WT:AT or WP:MOS, and only very sporadically about article content, but almost daily about moves. If anything, that problem has notably worsened over the last two years, probably emboldened by lack of DS enforcement, even as "style" dispute has receded elsewhere, system-wide. While a large proportion of requested moves involve a "style" matter (WP:MOS-connected or not), even those that don't – about things like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, disambiguation, WP:CONCISE, etc. – are still within the WP:AT remit. I.e., if it's at RM, it is about "article titles policy, broadly construed" by definition (and also often about the MoS).

The confusion arises because the exact wording is unfortunate, and easily WP:GAMEd: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed." The gaming is that while WP:RM per se is obviously within the scope of article titles policy, the RM discussions themselves take place on individual article (or non-article) talk pages, and they aren't technically "pages related to" AT or MoS. The intent of the provision was clearly to curtail style-and-title conflict, and it fails to do this as long as it is actively gameable as inapplicable to nasty behavior in RMs, or (more often) admins are uncertain they can enforce the DS in an RM discussion and so do nothing, or perhaps wag a finger. I rely on our principle (mentioned at GAMING, WP:LAWYER, WP:CONSENSUS, and I think WP:PROCESS and WP:POLICY) that WP's rules are interpreted and intended to be interpreted as to their intent and spirit, and their role in the project as facilitators of getting the work done, not with any eye to finding loopholes and escape clauses to exploit. There seems no "danger" in clarifying that the scope of the DS includes RM discussions, since everyone gets at least one {{Ds/alert}} before DS can apply to them anyway. I.e., anyone being a WP:JERK in RM gets away with it at least once until brought up to speed that it's not acceptable. And the behaviors in question aren't acceptable anyway, per the policies and behavioral guidelines the DS would be used to enforce.

The problem can be fixed by amending "all pages related to" to "all discussions related to". This would also have the side benefit of curtailing ARBATC-scope verbal abuse in user talk, ANI, and other venues, where it is also frequent. I believe that a great deal of title-and-style strife will evaporate, replaced by civil, reasoned discussion that focuses on policy and sources instead of personalities and WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH grandstanding, if civility policies are more actively enforced in RMs. All it takes is a one-word, common-sense amendment. It would also be more consistent with other DS cases, which don't have special exemptions for RM or any other particular forum, but apply to the topic generally.

  1. ^ I believe it was in a request that was declined and thus not archived as part of a case page, so I'm not sure how to find it.

Responses to commenters

@Andrew Dingley: The fact that an admin's DS-related comment in a particular case conflicts with previous admin comments in the other direction is why I seek clarification is neither here nor there. Your conspiracy theory cannot possibly be true; while I agree with Dicklyon about many things, we disagree about others. I'm seeking clear applicability of DS to RM given doubts about the matter, even though an admin in question wanted to apply them to a person you presume to be my lock-step ally. All of this has been long on my mind, since reading the ARCA request that RGloucester re-identified; recent events simply bring it to mind afresh. Instead of making up fantasies about my motives without any evidence, actually read what I've written and take it at face value. PS: You complaining about and misinterpreting a routine notice isn't other editors accusing me of harassment [that entire thread was hatted quite rapidly, too].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: It has nothing to do with you either, but with a conflict between what Thryduulf has said and what was said in the ARCA that RGloucester dug up [and various other admins' conflicting interpretations]. This couldn't be about you since no DS would be applying to you for anything you've posted, those things having been posted before you received a Ds/alert. As I said, the majority of the uncivil style/titles disputation is at RM not elsewhere, and the majority of Ds/alerts I leave relate to them. Not everything is about you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK: I'm not making a complaint, against anyone [I'm studiously avoiding doing so; I don't even expect Thruduulf to recuse, but to give his views about why DS should apply to RM]. I'm asking for a scope clarification, because this question of ARBATC's actual scope keeps coming up for several years now, and different answers keep being given, including by Arbs. The ANI being referred to simply reminded me that this needs to be settled one way or the other. I'm really not very devious. I would think this is pretty obvious after over a decade here. I'm very direct and just call it like I see it, without much regard for "wikipolitics" (in fact, I like to short-circuit wikipoliticking as much as possible, because I think it's corrosive to the community and project, increasingly so as the editorial and admin pools condense. Or you can continue to make assumptions about my motives.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: Mischaracterizing editors who disagree with you as like unto religious zealots is precisely the kind of personalization of style disputes that WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded is intended to address. Update: So was your "I feel pretty safe in ignoring anything you say as being wrong, self-serving, or intellectually dishonest" assumption of bad faith [6]. Your response here, again indicating a false belief that {{Ds/alert}} is a threat/warning about misconduct, not a notice of DS scope applicability, just proves my point further at WT:ARBCOM#Please fix the wording of Template:Ds/alert.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Updated 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Agreed, though I'm primarily concerned about more unicvil statements that most of those quotes (e.g. referring to other editors as "obnoxious and ... twatty", "idiots", "fanatical enforcers", plus comments like "I don't give a shiny shit about civility when it comes to people like you"). This kind of behavior is common across all "style" disputes (MOS, AT, infoboxes, citation formatting, etc.), and would not be tolerated if it were about Palestine or GMOs or race.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Sorry, I have not kept track of who's on or off ArbCom lately. :-) I generally agree strongly with your interpretation, yet ask you the same question I asked Euryalus, below. ARBATC is ARBATC, not "ARBMOS". Nothing has ever limited to the scope of ARBATC to MoS discussions and doing so here would actually be a much more major change in ARBATC scope and interpretation than applying ARBATC (to its full AT and/or MOS-related scope) regardless of venue including RM, as I've requested, per "broadly construed". While MoS-related incivility was mostly what I've been thinking of, people sometimes cross the line about other AT-related stuff, especially PRIMARY and disambiguation squabbles (the more the topic in question attracts fannishness, the higher the likelihood of hostile territorialism).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Arbs

@Newyorkbrad: I agree the level of disputation/striving is much greater at ANI, especially given the frequency with which it involves new editors (RM rarely does). But the level of incivility of a very predictable and consistent and continually ongoing kind, from particular parties, is much more apparent at RM, and has been on the increase for some time, turning into a sort of "this guideline will be applied over my dead body", RM-after-RM-after-RM tendentiousness. It could be another ArbCom case, but that would seem like a bunch of pointless drama if one one-word change to the original decision could permit admins to just deal with it at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm loath to provide example diffs, because the kind I have in mind – in the AGF/CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS vein especially, like labelling other editors "obsessive nutters" and implying various specific destructive or unhinged motives to them – would essentially be seen as trying to make disciplinary cases against specific editors (and might be likely to turn into them whether that were my intent or not). If I'd thought that route would be productive, I would have just opened an RfARB and named a bunch of parties [including all of the non-Arbs who have commented here so far as of 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)]. I did consider it, but it seemed likely to generate heat without light.[reply]

@Euryalus: Why would that MoS line be drawn, when ARBATC is about disputes involving the article titles policy or the MoS (both are not required at once)? RM's are always about article titles, so they would always be under the "AT" in ARBATC. The original case had as much to do with MoS-unrelated AT conflict as MoS. The only block I've ever received was an ARBATC DS action for alleged disruption of RM a few years ago. So, DS have definitely been applied to RM before.
[I dispute the allegation behind the block, made by an admin who did not look into the background of the matter and just picked one side to muzzle – but the block was so short it was not effectively appealable; by the time AN concluded I had to refile at AE or ARCA, it was too late. The moves under discussion later went the way I had proposed. Later, the same admin tried to topic ban me, again under ARBATC, and again to silence one side of an equally heated debate, and derailed an ongoing ANEW in the process; AN retroactively voided his action, and the report I'd been making at ANEW was later taken seriously. Same admin was RfARBed around this time last year, with more complainants than I've ever seen with grievances against a single admin, though action was not taken at that time, on a technicality.]
I would like to have that block declared invalid if ARBATC is held to not apply to RM, since that "scarlet letter" has repeatedly been held against me in a punitive fashion. PS: I agree that different regimes of DS should be normalized into something consistent.

Newyorkbrad: If the onus is on me as the requester to make the case for this "expansion" (in my view, clarification) of the scope, I would add to what I've said already:

  • The gist of the concerns, as expressed by someone above (and it seems consistent with comments in the old ARCA) is a "surprise ArbCom sanction" and "effectively plac[ing] thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction". But that's doubly inaccurate.
    • There's nothing "surprise" about it if you must receive a Ds/alert before any DS can be applied; and AE tends not to act in applying DS after such a warning anyway, unless the case is egregious or it's a multi-time repeat problem after the Ds/alert. The number of editors likely to be affected by DS would probably be countable on a single hand, even a few years later, but the strife level should drop notably just from AE issuing a few admonitions.
    • It would not be placing "pages" under DS; this would have no effect on any discussion on any talk page unless that discussion in particular were a) about article titles or the MoS and b) rife with disruptive or uncivil behavior (which are against policy to begin with).
  • One could stipulate that DS/alerts delivered before the scope clarification don't count (though this would be inconsistent with a previous ARCA decision that these notices cannot be rescinded or invalidated because they are just notices of scope, not conduct accusations or warnings).
  • Finally, "broadly construed" has no applicable meaning if ARBATC is held to apply only to discussions at WT:AT, WT:MOS and the talk pages other naming convention and MoS sub-guidelines; that's narrowly construed by definition. The clear intent of that wording was to construe the scope as covering title and style discussions broadly. Even if I'm misreading the original intent, it seems obvious that extending, if you like, the scope to AT/MoS "discussions", rather than "pages", would have a civility-reinforcing effect at little if any cost.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis: So, what, the current roiling pot of title- and style-related incivility and disruptive battlegrounding is going to continue forever, and worsen when people realize they're immune to DS if they do it at RM or otherwise away from WT:AT and WT:MOS? Are we supposed to open a new RfARB every time?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley

Of course this isn't "not about any parties in particular", it's a direct reaction to an ANI thread, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Page move ban, seeking a TBAN on Dicklyon (talk · contribs) for disruptive and over-simplistic pushing of a style guide over objectively sourced external uses with capitalisation. SMcCandlish's own behaviour and harassment of other editors has been questioned in the same thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RGloucester

The relevant past ARCA request that SMcCandlish said he could not find is here. The conclusion there was that these DS only apply to guideline and policy pages related to the MOS and AT. RGloucester — ☎ 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee: Now that various individual arbitrators have stated a position on this matter, and given that there seem to be mixed messages apparent in their responses, perhaps the Committee could decide the scope of these sanctions together, with clarity, and publish an official clarification in the form of a motion. As it is now, it is quite clear that everyone has a different definition of how these sanctions should apply. That type of ambiguity should not be present in a DS regime. It isn't fair to editors, nor to administrators who must attempt to enforce such sanctions. I'm asking this with sincerity. The reason this issue has come up again is because the last clarification request, which I submitted, was essentially ignored. If the DS regime is meant to apply only to policy/guideline-type pages in the project space, then publish a motion to that effect. Likewise, if the scope is different, and includes RM discussions or whatever. Please do this, for the good of the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Exemplo347

I believe this to be in response to something I said to SMcCandlish, when he gave me an ArbCom notice for a page that was not under any ArbCom sanction and I told him I'd be ignoring it on that basis. I'm glad to see, from reading the relevant discussion, that the interpretation isn't as broad as SMcCandlish thinks it is - it would have effectively placed thousands of pages under an ArbCom sanction without any justification. I'd like to call upon SMcCandlish to remove any ArbCom notices he has mistakenly posted on user talk pages, and he should leave apologies in their place. Regards Exemplo347 (talk)

Further note: Interpreting the decision as suggested above by SMcCandlish would involve a lot more than just "changing one word" - like I've said, it will affect thousands of pages, putting every single discussion that involves any Manual of Style related issue under some sort of surprise ArbCom sanction that can be deployed by editors determined to press home their point. It will be a massive, sweeping change if it is decided that the ArbCom decision really IS that wide. This definitely isn't a simple case of changing a few words and sending us on our way. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a huge loophole that should be closed definitively. If a page is under an ArbCom sanction it should be correctly labelled on its talk page, and those that aren't marked as such should be implicitly not seen as being under ArbCom sanctions. Leaving it up to the interpretation of editors clearly isn't working. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

A couple of very quick points:

  • SMcandlish's inquiry is clearly not a general one, but is obviously related to this ANI complaint about Dicklyon, in which SmCandlish has been active;
  • The complaint against Dicklyon centers around an issue of capitalization, which is most definitely a MoS issue, and is specifically related to Dicklyon making controversial changes without using the RM process designed for such changes;
  • This appears to me to be, as Andy Dingely wrote on AN/I, a case of SMcCandlish inappropriately forum shopping. I would urge that this complaint be shut down in favor of the AN/I complaint coming to fruition. If, at that time, SMcCandlish wishes to open a further complaint elsewhere, that would be fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton

Based on this ludicrous DIscretionary Sanctions warning that User:SMcCandlish left in response to this edit, I'd say that it's not just forum-shopping, but a lack of actual understanding of discretionary sanctions in general (and of this one in particular) which should lead to this request being rejected and User:SMcCandlish trouted with all due speed. --Calton | Talk 10:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the fifth item Dicklyon quotes is mine. I also notice that he doesn't mention that it's a direct echo of SMcandlish's own rant, I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them... But I'm guessing some rants are more equal than others and are A-OK. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dicklyon

I don't know if the DS was intended to apply to discussions invoking anti-MOS rants, but if so then the personalization and MOS-related mud slinging in the linked AN/I case would appear to make the warning relevent to participants who attacked me and the MOS as a unit:

  • The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Wikipedia
  • Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus.
  • I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors.
  • that this thread exists is reason enough to show that Dicklyon's behaviour is disruptive
  • ... simply a case of blindly following MOS (almost always a bad thing), ...
  • I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith?
  • it's high time that admins start to block editors who attempt to enforce MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory, which they are not

This was all posted as alternatives to saying anything that I actually did that was controversial, which I have repeatedly asked for there. It is as if some set of editors think that changes that bring things into closer conformity with the MOS are inherently controversial, even if very few get challenged. The inability of my accusers to say what edits of mine they would consider controversial, and this resort to MOS bashing instead, is rather infuriating, and I think that SMcCandlish meant to get them to think about that, even if he denies the warning was placed in response to any specific posts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Calton on the fifth one (which is now the sixth one since I added one): yes some MOS-related rants are more equal than others. These are ones that "attacked me and the MOS as a unit", as I said above. There was no call for you to respond to SMcCandlish's by attacking me with yours, even if his was meant to defend me. I have made no pretense of being anything like a "High Priest and Defenders of the Faith", and consider your comment a baseless slur, which matters a lot to me since it was in an AN/I section about me. It appears that you had no actual beef with me, but decided to attack me anyway, personally. That's why I listed your remark here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Firstly a quick clarification: I'm not an arbitrator, only a former one (and the relevant case here predates my time on the Committee). Also the ping didn't work (for whatever reason).

It has been my impression that discussions related to the manual of style, in whatever venue, are covered by the ARBATC DS authorisation, and that at least one editor has been previously sanctioned regarding their editing of requested moves (possibly Born2cycle but I don't have time to check right now). This I think would tally with Euryalus's feelings that the DS apply to RM discussions where the manual of style is a principle issue (e.g. whether railway line articles should be at "X Line" or "X line" per WP:MOSCAPS) but not to move discussions for other reasons (e.g. that currently happening at Talk:Revolution (Beatles song)). Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia Regalis: Determining the scope is very easy - if the rationale given for the move is to conform to a MoS guideline (often, but not exclusively, capitalisation) or the manual of style guidelines are used as a rationale to oppose a proposed move then it is within the scope of the DS. Communicating this should be very simple - (a) notify the MoS regulars via MoS talk page post(s), and (b) notify the participants of the discussions where it is relevant, most easily by a template similar to the ones that are placed on article pages. I do not see how this would be a massive expansion in either scope or intended scope.
@all arbitrators: Given though that we have arbitrators coming to exactly opposite interpretations of what the intent was and the scope currently is, I have to echo RGloucester's call for a formal clarification motion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: just fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I've just taken a look at the proposed decision page in the original case (which is where arbitrators comment on the principles, findings, and remedies as they cast their votes), and it appears clear that the intent at the time of the case was to apply DS to discussions relating to the policy and guidelines pages themselves, not to individual article and talk pages. The specific question of whether the DS would apply to a move request discussion was not raised or considered. These DS have been in place for almost five years and I'd be interested in whether they have been invoked in that context before, but from what has been posted so far it looks like the answer is no. Whether the scope of the DS should be extended to include every RM discussion is a different question, and the burden of persuasion is on those seeking the change. I'm aware from various AN/ANI threads that there have been flare-ups in this area, including at least one that is ongoing, but would one say that the typical contested RM discussion is more contentious than, say, the typical contested deletion discussion? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading over the PD I see NYB's point, and I think it's in the spirit of the decision to have DS apply to discussions. What's interesting in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions is a short bit of discussion between AGK and Courcelles, though that didn't extend into the wording that's being discussed here. I've seen a few RM discussions in the last years, and none that I recall were derailed or devolved into chaos and incivility because of these specific concerns--but that may not mean much. I do not in principle disagree with the proposal (or a similar proposal) though I am interested in seeing just a few examples to prove the need for it. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a reading of Courcelles' comment at the PD, and also from what is hopefully a commonsense interpretation, the DS seem intended to apply to applicable discussions where MOS issues were the central theme. In this instance the DS would apply to an RM discussion only where the principal issue in that discussion was directly related to the MOS. The DS would not apply to other RM discussions, akin to the way topic bans apply to parts of articles directly related to that topic, but not necessarily to every other part of the same article. That's an interpretation for this ARCA; on a related note we will one day need to consider the advisability of so many DS regimes, collectively applied to so many WP pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My take is that DS would apply if the crux of the issue with the name change of an article was directly related to capitalization. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I expected this to be an obvious one - it seems fairly clear to me that the intended scope was discussions on the MOS pages (and related policies, etc), not discussions about applications of the MOS in individual cases. I think the latter interpretation would vastly expand the scope of DS in a way that is nearly impossible to apply objectively (how do you decide when a discussion is "directly" related?) and similarly difficult to communicate to editors who are not regular participants in the RM process. Providing such an expansion as a de facto response to a specific incident involving a specific editor would be an overreaction. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back at the workshop, it appears Guerillero introduced the central language around this remedy and it was intended to prevent "MOS pages from being a battleground". On the PD talk, AGK commented, "the reference to "MOS" is a drafting error; when we say MOS, we mean WP:TITLE". The wording wasn't corrected to make this distinction, so it was either expanded to encompass and effectively seek to counter a wide range of MOS incidents, or it was simply missed. As it's written now, it states all MOS pages and WP:TITLE. I would say this ambiguity still narrows it down to the Wikipedia space and principally discussions pages, but whether it's confined to WT:MOS and WT:TITLE was not explicitly expressed. It seems to me, if the nucleus of the RM discussion was MOS or TITLE related, then I can easily see how someone could interpret these DS as being applicable. The fact that MOS is so broad is somewhat troubling because it potentially casts this DS net very wide. Mkdw talk 06:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Opabinia regalis that this should obviously not apply to individual move discussions. Looking at Mkdw's point just above, I interpret this to refer to the MOS with respect to titles and capitalization only. I read "to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy," as a single phrase. If we need to expand this further, we would need to discuss it. In fact, at the AfDs on Infoboxes, we made specific provisions for that part of the MOS. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition 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

  • [diff of notification Username]
  • [diff of notification Username]

Statement by Hijiri88

How does the GP work when an IP or new account makes off-topic edits relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict in articles that are not inherently related to the conflict? Is permanent (or even temporary) extended-confirmed protection appropriate?

This came up recently at Arab Jews. I am not sure if my concern technically applies to that article or not, since the article does seem to be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict by definition (even though I recognize that there have been Jews in Arabia for as long as there have been Jews).

But if this hasn't already come up and been formally clarified, it's almost certain to come up at some point.

The discussion on the Arab Jews article involved a number of specific users but I'm not sure if I should name them as "parties" to this ARCA request as I'm not asking for general clarification and not asking for sanctions or anything like that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Statement by Username

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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition: Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=761241385"