Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

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
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Mathsci (talk) at 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

WP:ARBR&I

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 4, Captain Occam topic-banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [1]

Amendment 1

• Captain Occam is site-banned from wikipedia for a period to be determined by ArbCom. The topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin could be extended to the two users privately mentioned in evidence to ArbCom.

Statement by Mathsci

Members of ArbCom have been aware for some time of ongoing issues of meatpuppetry following the topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and later on Ferhago the Assassin, per WP:SHARE. Evidence has been provided privately to ArbCom about two users associated off-wiki with both Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin.

At the end of January, unprompted, Captain Occam's editing on wikipedia entered a new stage of disruption. Members of ArbCom are already aware of the public letter written under his real name to the Economist. He has used this on letter on wikipedia as a springboard to reopen the closed case WP:ARBR&I and renew allegations on wikipedia that have not been accepted by ArbCom. Captain Occam appears to be fanning the flames in several venues, entirely against the spirit of his topic ban. His edits at the moment suggest that, not only is he still in conflict with users previously involved in WP:ARBR&I but no longer active on the articles, but that he is in conflict with ArbCom itself. He has not moved on from the ArbCom case, nor does he seem to take any responsibility for his own actions.

Previous procedural disruption occurred in December when ArbCom had already voted to lift my topic ban on their own initiative. In these circumstances, and in view of his lack of openness in addressing the outstanding issues of meatpuppetry, even when questioned by arbitrators, some form of site-ban unfortunately now seems necessary. Diffs can be provided on request, but almost all recent non-article space postings are relevant. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

---

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Ohconfucius)

Initiated by Ohconfucius (talk) at 09:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Case affected

Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

• 18): "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account "Ohconfucius" to edit"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• n/a

Amendment 1

• Suggested motion: "Remedy #18 ("Ohconfucius accounts") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use alternate accounts subject to normal community guidelines.

Statement by Ohconfucius

It has been three months since the previous amendment concerning me on the date-delinking case was passed. During this time, in addition to my content work, I have made edits to a large number of articles using scripts in furtherance to my stated objective to ensure date formats of articles are uniform, in compliance with WP:MOSNUM.

Since my last amendment, I have continued to perform valuable work in good faith for Wikipedia. 2010 Nobel Peace Prize has been declared a Good Article mainly through my efforts; I have also made significant improvements to the coverage of Paul Chater and Robert Hotung, Ho Tung Gardens, amongst others, in addition to a large number of minor, “gnoming” edits.

I hope to write a bot largely based on my WP:MOSNUMscript to reduce the manual gnoming effort, thus freeing more time for content-related work, which I love the most. I believe that the thousands of edits made using this script in article space in the last three months have proved to be highly successful, with almost no false positives and to my knowledge no objections by editors. To execute same by bot, I hope to submit the proposal, under an alternative account, for approval of BAG in due course once this restriction is lifted.

• Pursuant to the brief discussion below, I have today submitted a bot request, without creating the account MOSNUM bot (talk · contribs). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see two justifications listed--in short "I've been good" and "I want to run a bot on an alternate account", but I don't yet see a proximate lack of potential benefit to the project. Pending more input and simply looking at the request at face value, I'd be inclined to address this by permission to run a single bot account, conditional on BAG approval for the task, and address a wholesale removal of the restriction once that has proven to be successful. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting any input, but my initial inclination is per Jclemens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Also awaiting any input, and also noting that my initial inclination is per Jclemens. Risker (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Pending more input, I also agree with the approach outlined by Jclemens. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the approach suggested by Jclemens. Shell ^babelfish 19:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per Jclemens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• That would be my recommendation also. He hasn't made a case for needing multiple alternates, just a bot account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 18 arbitrators, a majority is 10.

Support:

1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Have no problem with this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Shell ^babelfish 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

---

Request to amend prior case: Date delinking (Lightmouse)

Initiated by Lightmouse (talk) at 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC) ; Case affected : Date delinking arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• 7.1): "Lightmouse is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia."

• supplement): "Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever."

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lightmouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment:

• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for another single automation task authorised by the Bot Approvals Group.

Statement by Lightmouse

• A single automation task was authorised by the Bot Approvals Group. See: Lightbot approval. The task ran between 18 December and 14 January for about 2500 edits. Lightbot has been dealing with units of measurement since June 2008 and has played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and smarter linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. The task recently approved by BAG was confined to adding conversions to feet and miles. I'd like Arbcom to give BAG the scope to permit Lightbot to convert inches in addition to miles and feet.

Question by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Given that the motion says that the account is authorized for a single automation task authorized by BAG, I think what Jclemens says would still apply. If BAG amended the single automation task (be it in terms of duration or nature), then the motion is still being complied with (making this request for amendment somewhat unnecessary). Is that correct? Or is this a drafting issue where arbitrators meant to write (in that motion) that the account is limited to the single automation task authorized by BAG (as set out at Lightbot 5) and that this task cannot be amended at any time without prior approval from ArbCom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Gigs

There were some minor concerns voiced about the most recent run, but nothing too serious. Jclemens wording seems to be the best way to clarify, as it was my understanding all along that the limitation was to one active task, not one task ever. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting input. Comments by those who have interacted with Lightmouse's recent automated edits, and can comment on their quality and adherence to policy, would be especially helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Rather than "one task" and "one additional task" and "one additional task", I would be more inclined to support one floating task at a time, which Lightmouse can negotiate with the BAG. If he's got an ongoing task which really needs doing on an ongoing basis, he should feel free to transition that to a bot operator not currently under a germane sanction. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Jclemens, but would also particularly appreciate the comments requested by Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Jclemens - support a single floating task to be agreed with the Bot Approvals Group. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Adding inches to the bot would still seem to fall under the same "dealing with measurements" task. Shell ^babelfish 19:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Per NYB - some feedback would be nice. Eventually I guess we can take the lack of same to mean a lack of problems, in which case per Jclemens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

Since there are 18 arbitrators, a majority is 10.

Support:

1. There appears to be good reason and consensus for this modification. I am not sure that the limitation to a single task (or group of related tasks) is essential, but I have no problem with moving one step at a time here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Don't see any issue with this. Shell ^babelfish 03:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
5. SirFozzie (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain: