Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
Cameron11598 (talk | contribs) →Clarification request: ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Hatting per clerks-l |
Cameron11598 (talk | contribs) →Clarification request: IP conflict: hatting per clerks-l |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
== Clarification request: IP conflict == |
== Clarification request: IP conflict == |
||
{{hat}} |
|||
;Case or decision affected |
;Case or decision affected |
||
:Some editors "''indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. ''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018&diff=841345743&oldid=841328418] |
:Some editors "''indefinitely banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. ''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018&diff=841345743&oldid=841328418] |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
*Definitely a matter for AE to handle. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC) |
*Definitely a matter for AE to handle. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 21:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
*We review most things on a case-by-case basis. I would need to review the editor's past history and the edit itself before making any decision. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 22:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC) |
*We review most things on a case-by-case basis. I would need to review the editor's past history and the edit itself before making any decision. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 22:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 01:14, 7 October 2018
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Clarification request: ARBIPA topic ban clarification | none | none | 2 October 2018 |
Clarification request: IP conflict | none | none | 6 October 2018 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this page 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:
Clarification request: ARBIPA topic ban clarification
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Ivanvector at 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Statement by IvanvectorI am seeking clarification on whether the article on the geographical feature Siachen Glacier is covered by the scope of the aforementioned sanction in its entirety because it contains a section describing the Siachen conflict (actually two sections) which itself is a dispute between India and Pakistan. This is in response to DBigXray posting a note ([1]) to SheriffIsInTown that their semi-automated filling of a reference within the description of the conflict ([2]) was a violation of their topic ban, which they acknowledged and self-reverted ([3]). While nobody here disagrees that this specific edit was strictly a topic ban violation, I've been challenged on my interpretation ([4]) that hypothetical constructive edits to the significant portions of the article which do not concern the conflict would not violate this sanction, and so I am seeking clarification on that point. I'd also like to point out that I restored the ref-fill edit as it was clearly constructive. I was then referred to the "banned means banned" section of the banning policy, which does not state that edits made in violation of a ban must be reverted; on the contrary it states that "obviously helpful changes ... can be allowed to stand". And I'd also like to draw the reviewers' attention to an essentially concurrent discussion ([5]) in which another editor was sanctioned for attempted frivolous enforcement of this same decision. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SheriffIsInTownAlthough, I am thankful that DBigXray's message on my user talk allowed me to remediate the blunder I made in form of an inadvertent violation of my ban, I am bit disappointed in the choice of language in their message. There is quite a bit of assumption of bad faith in their comment when they put it like "I saw that you are still editing Siachen Glacier", it conveys as if I was a long term habitual editor of that article and I am still continuing to edit that article in defiance of my ban but in reality that was my first ever edit on that article. I never ever edited that article in good ole days of freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia then why I would knowingly and willfully violate my topic ban just to fill a reference so assuming good faith, the message could have better read as "I see that you might have inadvertently violated your topic ban in this edit, please be careful in future as your ban is broadly construed and it does not matter whether you are fixing a reference or adding content about actual conflict." No matter the disagreements or different backgrounds, why cannot we give space to our fellow editors by assuming good faith towards them when we have a choice between both (good or bad). While we are here and being thankful to the admins to give me a leeway, my question to them and more specifically to ARBCOM members is that would not it be a good idea to exclude purely technical edits such as the one I made out of the scope of such topic bans. I am unable to see what could be the risk of such edits spiraling the conflict out of hands or starting an edit-war or battleground editing pattern which could be risks when an edit is truly content related. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by DBigXrayStatement by Fetchie MankalaI think that in this case, the entire article is subject to ARBCOM rulings. It's clear from looking at it that the conflict is more than a mere mention in this article. Statement by ThryduulfBefore I looked at the article I was expecting to opine that the parts of the article related to the geographical/geological/environmental/etc aspects of the glacier would be fine to edit. However, after having read the article it seems that everything is intimately tied up with the conflict, or its origins, history or effects. I would recommend topic banned users give this article a miss in its entirety. Ivanvector is correct though regarding reinstating the self-reverted edit. WP:PROXYING is the relevant policy here - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." [emphasis in original]. The edit in question was clearly productive, and there is no suggestion that it was performed at the direction of anyone else. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBGI do not have an affinity for boundary-testing-experiments but IMO, if Sheriff can manage to edit the article excluding anything tangential to the conflict, there's no problem. The entire second paragraph of lead, etymology-section and drainage-section ought not be any related to the conflict. I would advise against the seemingly-innocent section of Environmental issues courtesy that they are caused by the presence of forces et al, which links up to the conflict. The rest of the sections are a clear-red-zone. I concur with Ivan's restoration and commend him for rising above petty process-wonkery. Whilst I agree that this particular edit violated Sheriff's T-Ban, I don't have any idea as to why DBigXray asked for a revert; a plain note of caution would have been sufficient.∯WBGconverse 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Adamgerber80I agree with the current action taken by Ivanvector and believe that this was a constructive edit. IMO, as long as we are here, there is an issue with this topic ban from the point of view of it's scope. Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the ban or trying to dig into the reasons behind it. My intention here is to clearly list what is allowed and what is not allowed under this topic-ban, for the sake of the editors who are under the ban and other editors who edit in the general area. When the ban was crafted there was some degree of ambiguity to it (not certain if that was deliberate or not) which has led different administrators to derive different interpretations from it and impose it per their view. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to maybe make a small list of gray areas to remove procedural overhead of people reporting each other and leading to more discussions. I would present two scenarios which happened recently because of the aforementioned ambiguity. There was a WP:ANI discussion about an editor who was involved in the area and some editors who participated in the discussion were briefly banned since this was considered a violation of their topic ban. Another scenario which is currently playing out on another talk page discussion where there was a discussion about inclusion/exclusion of countries (along with India and Pakistan). I don't have a strong opinion in either of these cases or other gray areas but feel listing no-go zones and okay zones might be easier for all of us. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC) 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. ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Clerk notes
ARBIPA topic ban clarification: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Clarification request: IP conflict
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by OrientlsWould it be a topic ban violation if an editor topic banned from "edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan" edits Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan? The description of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources largely emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their "power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source. Historically we have considered subjects like Khalistan movement, Insurgency in Balochistan to be a violation of this particular topic ban since these subjects are also tied up with conflicts between India and Pakistan. Even if an editor edits such subjects without actually making mention of India-Pakistan conflict, then still it could be still considered a topic ban violation because India-Pakistan conflict is among the major factor involved and ultimately the coverage of India-Pakistan conflict is significantly affected. Orientls (talk)
Statement by FloqI am generally suspicious of these generic "I won't tell you who I'm asking about" questions. ArbCom should decline to answer without background info. Doing it this way denies the targets of the filing the opportunity to comment. If ArbCom doesn't decline, someone should notify all the editors in the linked enforcement log addition. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC) 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. Clarification request: IP conflict: Clerk notes
Clarification request: IP conflict: Arbitrator views and discussion
|