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.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127

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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127

Clarification request: Pseudoscience

Initiated by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) at 16:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Pseudoscience 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:

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Squeamish Ossifrage

My apologies in advance if I've botched the maze of templates involved with this process in any way.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience establishes standard discretionary sanctions as its final remedy. It has, shall we say, an interesting history of amendments. Its current form authorizes sanctions "for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" (emphasis mine). Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions lists the areas to which discretionary sanctions currently apply, including "Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science" (emphasis mine); this wording is also used in the discretionary sanction alert template for the associated case.

It is my assumption that this is a distinction without a difference, and that the sanctions apply regardless of namespace. I inquired with Sandstein to ensure I was correct in my reading, as he appears to be among the more active arbitration enforcement administrators. He suggested that I refer the issue here for more explicit clarification. And so, I have.

Statement by Sandstein

The reason why I recommended that Squeamish Ossifrage ask here is that I'm not so sure that the answer is all that obvious. As Salvio giuliano writes, discretionary sanctions apply to all pages, not only articles, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise", but – it seems to me – that is precisely what the remedy in question does by specifying that sanctions apply to ""all articles relating to pseudoscience", underlining mine. If that is (as I suspect) not what the Committee intended, I recommend that the remedy and others like it are amended to read "for the topic of pseudoscience" or similar. Sandstein 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

Your interpretation is correct. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Placing sanctions and page restrictions, the rules that are to be applied to determine whether an edit is covered by discretionary sanctions are the ones outlined in the topic ban policy, i.e. this section. As a result, unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, [discretionary sanctions apply to] all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandstein, in my opinion, you're reading too much in what's but a bit of anachronistic wording. After all, while it's true that there really is no uniformity in the wording of the provisions authorising discretionary sanctions (which, going forward, is something we may want to fix), our intention is generally clear.
  Looking at previous cases, I see "standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with X", "pages related to the Y, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions" and "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Z"; however, I don't doubt that, irrespective of the different formulations, all these mean the same thing: all edits concerning X, Y and Z are subject to discretionary sanctions, regardless of namespace.
  Then again, we could pass a motion amending all provisions authorising DS to read "for all edits" rather than "all articles or pages", but, if I can be honest, this looks like a waste of time to me. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Salvio. By "clearly and umambiguously specified otherwise", I'd expect some sort of phrase such as "but not in project space" or "for articles only". It's pretty clear to me that the discretionary sanctions extend outside of article space. I'm happy to support a motion, but I don't see that it's necessary. Worm^TT(talk) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The intention was to cover everything related regardless of namespace. I think a motion to clarify this won't hurt. T. Canens (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Sexology (Neotarf)

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Sexology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

[1]

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

Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [[2]] notified

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

[[3]] Discretional sanctions specifically apply to self identifying transgender people, in this case Tutelary is a transgendered woman and the comment saying that they are claiming to be a woman does violate that remedy. Also if you look at the issue of [[4]] which resulted in a topic ban after findings of fact which noted comments [[5]] identical to what was stated on ANI. The views at Arb Enforcement is that this is not article related therefore unactionable, I believe that the remedy includes treatment of "any" transgender person. Does this remedy only apply to BLP articles or editors as well? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this in an email to NYB which was only part of my questions but I want to post this here too [[6]] under the subheading "Defamatory Terms" it reads "Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting." Letting go the fact that this decision is closed ) which I will not pursue further I think a clarification is warranted for future reference. Apparently the drama meter is up right now and a big reason is because of the dispute of woman rights, civility and maintaining editing atmosphere that is not demeaning. I am quite sure User:Neotarf would agree on those principles. I also think that if it's established that the remarks are offensive Neotarf will refrain from making them but let's at least agree it's demeaning to a transgender person, the question is does this remedy only apply for articles or does it apply to other editors. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carolmooredc

Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well. The relevant passage is:

The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.

The problem is the phrase "any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning." sounds to some like it includes editors, despite the previous mention of articles.

Hell in a Bucket is not the only person to have misread this. I have been threatened with sanctions for once accidentally and once unknowingly calling two different transgender editors "he". I've been repeatedly badgered by someone (whether female or transgender, I'm not sure) who I admitted I only thought was a "he" but who finally admitted she was a "she", but doesn't advertise the fact. I guess I should ask her if that's what has her so ticked off. In fact I just noticed that this conversation - User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Simplicity_for_the_confusion - is mostly about people being not sure if it was effrontery to use he about an editor on a talk page. (This a sub-thread of another Hell in a Bucket posting on the topic.) Check it out.

I sure would like to see it made much clearer you are talking only about article space and not just article space. Anything that makes it a bit clearer in the actual section (bolding the word article or writing "only article", for example) would be a big help. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Sexology (Neotarf): Arbitrator views and discussion

The context here is a closed AE thread in which the AE administrators concluded that (1) the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Sexology and Manning cases apply only to articles, not to noticeboard discussions, and (2) the single comment in question did not warrant action in any event. I perceive the second of these conclusions as clearly correct, and hence need not reach the first. This is not a useful request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing requiring further action, broadly per Newyorkbrad. AGK [•] 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to disagree with the outcome of the AE thread. No action required here. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that we have similar clarifications on two different topics at the same time. I, too, understood that the discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns would apply to editors and talk pages. It's more difficult for administrators to make a decision, and I wouldn't expect everyone to know what gender other people are. However, if an editor is wilfully and knowingly using the incorrect pronouns, I'd expect that to be covered. Worm^TT(talk) 07:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought Manning discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well, well count me in among those who thought that. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 *I see nothing requiring further action, broadly per Newyorkbrad. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 09:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 *I see no reason to disagree with the outcome of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Neotarf|AE thread]]. No action required here. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 10:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
+*:Interesting that we have similar clarifications on two different topics at the same time. I, too, understood that the discretionary sanctions regarding pronouns would apply to editors and talk pages. It's more difficult for administrators to make a decision, and I wouldn't expect everyone to know what gender other people are. However, if an editor is ''wilfully'' and ''knowingly'' using the incorrect pronouns, I'd expect that to be covered. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 07:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 *{{xt|Frankly, like a lot of people until now I thought [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Discretionary_sanctions_applicable|Manning discretionary sanctions]] regarding pronouns applied to editors and talk pages as well}}, well count me in among those who thought that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 14:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 ----