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: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
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 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: Article titles and capitalisation[edit]
| General consensus among participating Arbitrators is that nothing needs to be done at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by HouseBlaster[edit]The Manual of Style and Article title policy are jointly authorized contentious topics. Speaking for myself, I have It seems that others are also unaware (in the conventional sense) that article titles are CTOPICs; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions it was about three days and 26KB of discussion before Guerrillero pointed out that article titles are already designated as a CTOP. The MOS and article titles are related, but distinct, issues. I think they should be split into seperate CTOPs to reflect the fact that they are distinct issues. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Extraordinary Writ[edit]Splitting the remedy is probably more trouble than it's worth. But while we're here: there hasn't been a logged sanction under this case since 2020, and that's probably because its scope is so narrow that most title- or MOS-related disruption isn't covered. Honestly there's a strong argument for just repealing it altogether, although the timing may not be right for that. An alternative would be to expand it to include RMs and the like (certainly there have been plenty of issues there), but that would give administrators an awful lot of discretion. The status quo of having the CTOP cover just the policy/guideline pages (which are often less contentious than the RMs) doesn't really make sense to me, though, and the lack of use suggests it's not doing much of value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit]I would oppose splitting them, because the application of the MOS guidelines to the article titles policy was a large part of the controversy that caused me to file the case in the first place. See also Comet Hale–Bopp. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (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. Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes[edit]
Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]
|
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads[edit]
Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Just Step Sideways[edit]
Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.
(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)
- In one case a user posted nothing more than the name of a very long thread at an off-wiki criticism site (they actually didn't even spell it the same as the actual thread title). It turned out that within this off-wiki thread, if one dug through it long enough, there was a link to a different thread where the very user who had made the on-wiki post was outed. This resulted in a very large number of diffs on a busy page being supressed, even though there was no direct link to any outing.
- In an ongoing RFA, some users are opposing based on what could only be described as completely harmless posts on that same forum. The recent supression action would seem to indicate that even posting the name of the thread on-wiki would lead to further supression, which is obviously to be avoided. One of these users has stated that they contacted the committee before posting, but it is unclear what this was meant to accomplish or what the committee may or may not have said back to them, if anything.
- I considered reproducing some or all of the RFA candidates posts on-wiki to demonstrate the point that they are comletely unproblematic unto themselves, but given the events described above I don't know if that would also lead to supression actions.
I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.
I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.
I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically Wikipedia:Oversight. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Barkeep, I'm not sure what I've got wrong, because I had to kind of piece together what actually happened as the material was supressed. I was pretty sure I'd got it right but guesswork is risky that way. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish[edit]
I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Floq[edit]
I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde[edit]
I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like this is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Joe Roe[edit]
I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of a community RfC and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?
In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aoidh makes a good point below about current policy (WP:OUTING) requiring disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia before it can be discussed. There are two pivot points there: where the disclosure should happen, but also whether
profiles on external sites
, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy,[1][2] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC) - @Moneytrees and Barkeep49: The "copyright email" correspondence is cited in WP:EMAILPOST, albeit in a roundabout way. I think it would be helpful for the committee to formally retract that remedy, even if it won't change things immediately, just to remove the spectre of that particular armchair lawyer from subsequent discussions. As Barkeep also alludes to, a lot of the appearance of support for these rules comes not from people really reflecting on the core issue, but transferring a (faulty) logic originally applied to emails to IRC, and then from IRC to Discord, and so on. If the sender of an email wants to control what happens to it, they can do so completely: by not sending it. If the operator of a Discord channel wants to control what happens to the logs, they can do so completely: by not making them public. But what we're talking about here is material that has already been published on the internet. It is not private and never will be again. All we achieve by trying to put the cat back in the bag is to create a charade where we have to pretend not to be able to see messages that we can all see, not to know things that we all know, and not to talk about things that we can all talk about elsewhere. Nobody's privacy is protected, it just makes it easier for editors who behave badly off-wiki to evade accountability, and makes good-faith editors look like idiots because they're not allowed to provide evidence for the opinions they've formed based on off-wiki activity.
- @CaptainEek: What is ArbCom supposed to do with it, though? The precipitating incident here is an RfA where there was opposition based on the candidates activity on Discord and Wikipediocracy (so no it's not just about WPO). The opposers (including me) could not point to specific incidents, because of the rules discussed here which, at least in part, stem from a prior ArbCom remedy on from the practice of the oversight team. How would emailing ArbCom help there? And in general, what role is ArbCom supposed to play when the off-wiki material that people want to discuss is relevant to on-wiki activities, but doesn't rise to the level of something needing ArbCom intervention?
- And to nobody in particular, I do think it would aid transparency if committee members who are active on the off-wiki forums we're discussing here disclose it when voting or offering an opinion. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Ferret[edit]
I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to WP:Discord, I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 Thanks. I have heard this said (Re: disclosure on other Wikimedia projects) repeatedly, but I did not know where it might actually be stated. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf[edit]
Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 so basically what I said just more clearly and a lot more concisely! Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: there are two issues with connecting accounts elsewhere. The first is ensuring that connections are actually correct, i.e. User X here is the same person as user X elsewhere - even sharing relatively unusual names like Thryduulf is not a guarantee (I remember finding a user Thryduulf that was nothing to do with me a few years ago, user:Thrydwulf is nothing to do with me). The second issue is that editors have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are allowed to choose to disclose things in other communities that they do not want to disclose here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Statement by hako[edit]
I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing
I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. — hako9 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Clerk notes[edit]
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]
- Thanks for raising this issue JSS. As the OS who did the noticeboard suppression which named a thread, your facts aren't quite right there, but I don't think that takes away from the larger point you're raising. And it's one I admit to some discomfort with in an RfA context. As it stands I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing. I also think the community would care about certain off-wiki activities. For instance, if User:Foo had lost Stewardship due to abuse on Miraheze/WikiTide there would be no cause for any action here, but I think the community would want to consider that information before passing someone at RfA. So don't have any answers (yet) but wanted to acknowledge some thoughts I had as I wait to see what other editors and arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I want to take more time to look into this so I can make a more informed opinion, but wanted to note that I am paying close attention to this and appreciate the statements given so far. I think it's important to note that the current wording of WP:OUTING requires self-disclosure on Wikipedia in order for the disclosure of off-wiki profiles to not constitute outing, and I think it's important to view these issues through that lens unless and until that policy is amended. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have a lot of thoughts about this but might take some time to make them digestible. One thing though, I agree with you @Joe that the "copyright" justification for not posting emails is pretty dubious, at least in a modern Wikipedia context, and I know at least one other Arb felt a similar way last year. That said, I think it's reasonable to prohibit the posting of emails (or at least discourage it), and WP:EMAILPOST doesn't actually cite the "copyright" portion of the remedy~-- so I'm not actually sure if it's something that needs to be amended? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I'm the arb mentioned (could be!), but there was a reason in the Discord RfC mentioned above that I said it and IRC should be treated equally. I think there's a fairly reasonable case that channel/server operators should be able to decide if logs can be posted onwiki or not and for that decision to be respected onwiki. Further the copyright justification (as opposed to just straight up "Wikipedians are concerned about privacy and this is one way we choose to protect it) for OS'ing off-wiki stuff has always felt weak to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see a lot of beating around the bush here, but it seems clear that the real issue here is Wikipediocracy. I do not recommend participation in WPO even as a "good guy" (the classic adage about wrestling with pigs applies). It has gotten more people into more drama than highschool theatre.With that said, there are two possible situations involving off-wiki content: 1) the content relies entirely on on-wiki evidence, but collates/comments on/brings to light the issue; or 2) the content relies on off-wiki/private evidence. In case of situation 1, if the underlying diffs could be posted on wiki without say outing someone, then just post the underlying diffs. No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. In the case of situation 2, you shouldn't be posting that on-wiki, because you're linking to content that wouldn't be okay on-wiki, like doxxing. Alluding to it is not an improvement in my book, because then you're just casting aspersions. Instead, it should get emailed to ArbCom, who can take action as necessary. The moral is that there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Amendment request: India-Pakistan[edit]
Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Contentious topic designation
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Contentious topic designation
- Adding the 500/30 rule specifically to the India military regiments topic area (defined as List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army and any page that is or could potentially be listed there)
Statement by Jéské Couriano[edit]
Over the past month or so we've been having members of the Indian Armed Forces either editing or attempting to create articles concerning military regiments in India. It's only recently come to light that this is a concerted effort by the Indian Army itself; practically all accounts involved have failed to disclose their connexions and very few have used their talk pages (and those that do tend to describe it as an order from higher up that they don't really have a choice but to obey). I'm not as concerned about the drafts, as they're G5-eligible. What I am concerned about are the pages already in mainspace that have been targeted by this campaign, such as 1889 Missile Regiment (India) and a host of others; see User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam for a more complete list. I'm seeking to have the 500/30 rule apply specifically in the Indian military regiments topic area to stymie editing of this sort and to force these editors to the talk pages of the articles to make their case.
- @Guerillero: The community has been playing whac-a-mole and finding both older accounts and created-in-the-past-12-hours accounts on a daily basis, which get listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT on discovery. The drafts as I said are easily dealt with, but there's little the community can really do to stop the article editing other than roll dice on protection (which will likely be ECP, due to the age and habits of several of these accounts) as the accounts appear to be under orders to violate WP:OWN and there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit. All we know is it's going to be about an Indian military regiment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:25, 7 June 2024 (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.
India-Pakistan: Clerk notes[edit]
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]
- Has the community gotten a chance to resolve this issue? If not, I am inclined to deny the request --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that 500/30 is the right response to this disruption. However, IPA along with PIA and EE are topics where I don't really expect much community attempts at resolution prior to arbcom given the nature of those disputes on and off wiki. So I am open to doing something here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- While I know we generally protect pages as a result of disruption and not pre-emptively, I think the argument could be made that because of past disruption at related pages, it is not unreasonable to extend that protection to a class of article (in this case Indian military articles). In other words, would ECP across all of the related pages solve this issue? WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would solve the issue because the edits/editors are already being reverted on-sight, and it is really meant more to restrict all editing to those who have been around for a while. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Primefac with questioning the efficacy of this proposed solution. Jéské Couriano's assessment that
there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit
means that short of applying ECP to most or all of the articles in this topic area (which isn't reasonable) WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would address the issue. It would, however, create more barriers to other editors who would like to edit those articles. - Aoidh (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)