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

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

Clarification request: Fæ

Initiated by Fæ (talk) at 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Link to "Unblocked by the Arbitration Committee" statement

Statement by Fæ

This request was first raised two months ago at AC/N link when I was advised to re-raise it here after the elections.

At the beginning of last year Arbcom accepted my appeal but at that point introduced the restrictions:[1]

topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed

I am requesting that the restrictions are lifted as not being of practical benefit to the project, in particular they are a key reason why I am avoiding offering my experience and volunteer time for training events or content creation projects that would improve the English Wikipedia. As an example of how difficult these broad restrictions are to comply with, in November 2013 I ran a one-off presentation and workshop with Kings College London as part of a UK "Women in Science" series of events[2]; these events are widely seen as a positive step by the Wikipedia community and a positive story by the global press with regard to addressing perceived systematic gender bias for Wikipedia content. During the event I created a stub[3] for Susan Lea, a professor of psychology at the college, as suggested by attendees, during the same event this was developed. It never occurred to me this may be an issue and it was only later that I realized that Lea's research covers sexual violence and rape.

Due to my past stressful experience of being harassed, I focused my volunteer time during 2013 on Wikimedia Commons, where I have uploaded over 160,000 photographs, and on request supported the Welsh Wikipedia where a continuing cooperative project has resulted in my uploading 2,700 requested book covers with 700 new articles about authors being created (some are authors on LGBT topics, though I have not created the articles). Apart from a handful of related image renames or behind the scenes OTRS work, I remained retired as a Wikipedian during 2013.

I have a long running interest in LGBT history and archives and I am at an informal exploratory discussion stage with a London college and planning to contact an independent library/archive I helped a few years ago, for a volunteer project I hope get off the ground in early 2014 (in advance of Wikimania 2014) that would help English Wikipedia content with media and previously unpublished source material, and could itself support the case for funding of an academic placement of a Wikipedian in Residence. I aim to get a proposal completed by February. By its nature a LGBT project would involve articles about events and living people (being from the 1950s to the current time) and LGBT material would be considered under the broad topic of sexuality.

Note, I have an approved project grant from WMUK[4] which supports Commons batch upload projects during 2014. Should there be a suitable opportunity to batch upload LGBT archive material, it is likely that it would be covered by the current grant.

I hope this request can be handled in a respectful way, especially considering the off-wiki attention that this topic tends to attract. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned—My focus has been on other projects, partly due to being concerned about how wide the topic ban of sexuality broadly construed is. You may wish to consider my Wikimedia work as demonstrated by some of my 2013 projects: Aeroplanes, LACMA (art history), MOD, Welsh books. These and my other projects have generated huge amounts of valuable educational content. In addition my long term role on the GLAMwiki Toolset steering group has resulted in Wikimedia tools which are about to generate many millions of high quality media assets for Wikipedia in partnership with many international leading institutions.

@Beeblebrox—As an example the difficulty of how broad "sexuality" is, I was at the Tate Britain exhibition on Art Under Attack this afternoon and was particularly interested in whether we could get versions of the New Scotland Yard letters from 1914 carrying warnings about suffragettes known to have made attacks on artworks, and so reasonably improve Wikipedia's articles about WSPU members. I believe any work such as this, potentially in partnership with the British Museum and Women's Library would be impossible for me to support under the current restrictions. In terms of past problems, I believe you are probably referring to edits I made back in 2010 or earlier. I have made well over 1,000,000 edits on various Wikimedia projects in the 3 years since then.[5][6] In terms of others wanting my support, I have a planned training and workshop day with the National Maritime Museum and other museum staff next month and should also get on with spending the WMUK project grant later this month, none of this volunteer work is made easy with a broadly construed topic ban making impossible any edit to the English Wikipedia touching topics such as women's rights, or notable figures in naval history who happen to be of LGBT interest (there are many). You may wish to consider how well followed my edits are, giving you some assurance that any problem I create would be likely to be rapidly flagged, in all probability both to me and many others.

Related to this point, I would like specific short term permission to make an article about an 11th century B.C. statue in the British Museum that one of my historian friends asked me to take photographs of for an undergraduate course; it was always my intention to create a Wikipedia article about this unique statue and I am unsure how else would be appropriate to ask for a specific waiver, and this may prove a good example of my editing strengths to support a later full appeal. This is in the BM catalogue here and my photographs were published on Commons at Category:Assyrian statue BM 124963 in June last year. The good quality cuneiform inscription (for which my photographs appear to be some of the best published records as even the BM only has one partial photo) is a key document from Ashur-bel-kala's rule.

Statement by Thryduulf

Fæ, I would recommend that if you wish to return to full editing on en.wp that you spend some time between now and march formulating a request to narrow the scope of your topic bans rather than removing them entirely. After at least 6-9 months of successfully working with no problems within those restrictions, the committee is more likely to look favourably on a further relaxation of restrictions or removing them entirely.

When you make that request (and don't make it shortly after midnight on the 1st) I suggest you focus on what you want to do, specifically, not what broad categories of material you might have worked on. "Sexuality" is a very broad topic, so there is scope for narrowing it. Identify something specific that you want to improve that is on the edge of the "Sexuality" topic area and propose a rewording of the article topic ban that leaves the core area you were sanctioned for within the scope but allows you to edit your proposed borderline articles. Propose also the addition of a second clause to the image ban along the lines of "excluding images directly related to X", where X is the article topic area you want to work on.

Once you have decided what you want to work on, get some edits to a related area that is outside the scope of the topic ban but which is adjacent to it. For example if you want to improve the coverage of living openly gay UK MPs, first improve an article like Nicholas Eden, 2nd Earl of Avon (died 1985, so clearly not a BLP subject), but make sure you don't work with images for the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick-D

At the risk of seeming rude/ungrateful Fæ, I'd suggest that the uploads to Commons you highlight in your request have had an undue emphasis on quantity over quality. I've recently been working with some of the IWM images you uploaded of British naval operations off Norway, and the fact that they were all uploaded as "File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War" followed by the relevant IWM catalogue number made them difficult to use. The minimal categorisation of the images you've been uploading also do not contribute to these images ever actually being used (for instance, you originally placed these IWM images in only the very broad "Royal Naval photographer" category, and images of aircraft you uploaded in November were placed only in a category for the airport, and not the plane type/serial number which is typically a much more useful classification). While your work in uploading all these images is clearly very valuable and contributed to "my" most recent FA (Operation Tungsten) and what I hope will be my next GA (Operation Mascot), the lack of basic follow through with categorisation to encourage their use raises some concerns in my mind (quite possibly unfairly) about how carefully you'd edit BLPs as it is suggestive of an attitude of prioritising "adding stuff" over "adding useful stuff". In short, I'd suggest that as part of the next unban request you be in a stronger position to demonstrate the quality of your contributions, and not just the quantity of them. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Per the unblock request, the topic bans may be appealed after 1 year - that is 12 March 2014. So, I'd not change anything for now. I am pleased that you haven't run into similar troubles since the arbitration case, but in March I would expect a little more evidence (here or on other Wikimedia projects) that you are unlikely to run into the difficulties that lead to the case. The fact that you've made less than 100 edits to Wikipedia since being unblocked gives me very little to go on, and I'm not active at the other projects to look at how you're doing. Worm^TT(talk) 10:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recused. AGK [•] 12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree with Worm. Too early, and while this request explains why you would like the topic bans lifted, there really isn't any indication of why it would be in the best interest of the project and/or why we should not expect to see a repeat of past problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to re-emphasize that no matter what arguments you make this is still premature and in my opinion should not even be considered at this time. Frankly, filing such a request on New Year's Day smacks strongly of "asking the other parent." Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this request is premature. Secondly, if I was to consider a relaxation of the topic bans (at the present time) I would want to see a specific, narrow scope request. I'm not sure I'd support such a request, but if I was to consider anything I would want a much more specific/narrow scoped request, with a specific reason. I know you do good work on Commons and elsewhere, but this request is undoubtedly premature, and hence I'd rather not change anything for now. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself only, I do not have a problem with considering this request in January rather than in March, and Fae has provided some explanation for the timing of his request (although posting it the very day the new arbitrators started was a mistake). I think the serious issue with this request is that historically there have been issues with Fae's image uploads and edits concerning the sexuality of living persons. I would therefore consider a modification of the topic-ban that would allow him to contribute images in clearly historical contexts, but not images relating to living (or recently deceased) persons. I am unwilling at this time to remove the restriction against sexuality-related editing on BLPs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly agree with what other arbitrators have said so far. Fae, there is good advice being given by Thryduulf and Nick-D. If you follow that advice then I would be more likely to support a future amendment request. If you seek a less broad amendment request earlier than the date suggested by other arbitrators (12 March), I suggest a preliminary note asking whether such a request should be made or should be held back until 12 March (or some point thereafter). Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with the above, both that the request is premature at this time, and that when it is the time, I would be much more comfortable with a gradual scaling back of sanctions than a wholesale removal. I would encourage Fae to think about what shape such a scaling back would entail, and also to show more non-problematic editing activity outside the banned areas. Sexuality may be a broad area, but it is not all-encompassing, and there are many areas in which to edit with no risk of falling foul of the ban. I also agree with Newyorkbrad in that the BLP sanctions are the ones I would be least comfortable with lifting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should either enforce time limits on appeals, or stop including them in our decisions. I prefer the former approach. Decline. (I'm also not inclined to grant this appeal on the merits, for the reasons outlined by my colleagues.) T. Canens (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute

Initiated by NE Ent at 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

suspended topic ban

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator) not really, but it's in the form
RoslynSKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AE admins (multiple)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

RosylnSKP
AE

Information about amendment request

RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I. This topic ban is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history...
Either delete the "suspended" part (putting the ban into effect), or
Change to: "This topic ban is suspended and will be unsuspended if the consensus of administrators at arbitration enforcement is that it is appropriate to minimize continued disruption to the encyclopedia." (or equivalent).

Statement by NE Ent

The absolute binary nature of this remedy has put the AE community in the awkward position of either ignoring or imposing a severe remedy for what is arguably a minor, perhaps unintentional, infraction of the revert restriction remedy of the case. Please see applicable AE discussion. The committee should either just go ahead and impose the ban, or empower the admins at the AE to use their judgement as to whether the remedy is appropriate in a particular context. NE Ent 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

A splendid example of the "law of unintended consequences." Fixable simply by changing will be to may be and adding after discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. Sorter wording and wording which well ought to be adopted by ArbCom in similar cases in future. Collect (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I'm commenting here as an administrator who has also commented about the currently open enforcement request. I didn't follow the original case and have no opinion about whether the Committee's remedy that provides for an automatic topic ban of RosylnSKP in the event of a block is appropriate or not. That is for the Committee to determine, although I would find it surprising if the Committee were to change its mind so soon about a case it decided just a week ago.

Procedurally, I find this request by an editor who has no apparent reason to make it, because they are neither an administrator nor personally involved in the case, unhelpful. It adds an additional complication to processing the open enforcement request. This is not the first time that this forum has been used to preempt or influence an ongoing enforcement proceeding, which makes the enforcement process even more complicated and time-consuming. I recommend that the Committee considers under which if any circumstances it wants to accept amendment requests pertaining to decisions that are in the process of being enforced, and that it clarifies whether such requests mean that ongoing enforcement proceedings should be suspended (which, absent rules to that effect, I assume is not the case). Sandstein 11:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RosylnSKP has now resumed editing and has apparently chosen not to make a statement about this request. Instead she has continued to edit in a manner that violates the restrictions that apply to her pursuant to the decision. I have therefore closed the enforcement request with a block, which activates the topic ban. This is of course without prejudice to any changes the Committee may wish to make as a result of this request. Sandstein 11:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Initial statement (on the content dispute)

Commenting here not as an arbitrator (I recused on the case itself), but as someone who has a passing knowledge of the some of the history here: the underlying content matter looks to be extremely complex. As far as I can tell, the use of both the terms Ottoman and Turkish is valid in such articles, as long as those terms are used correctly. But to use them correctly requires a solid understanding of the politics and history of the region. One of the books I'm reading at the moment is A Peace to End All Peace - The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Fromkin, 1989). That is by no means definitive, and there are obviously a multitude of sources that can be consulted, but the key point is that both terms can be used in the same article as long as you use them correctly (the fact that multiple academic sources use both terms depending on the context should make that clear). I think the idea that you have to use one term to the exclusion of the other on one article, or even use them interchangeably, is wrong, and that wasn't emphasised enough in the MILHIST discussions, and the arbitration case may have missed some of the more subtle points of this altogether. The key is to understand the sources and use the terms correctly. I understand that arbitration cases focus on conduct, but I'm making this statement in the hope that those editing such articles, and also those carrying out arbitration enforcement, don't draw the conclusion from the arbitration case that the underlying content matter is a simple one. Some editors do, or may, need to be excluded from the discussions, but more discussion of the content issues here will be needed at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to work out where RoslynSKP goes from here. What I'm about to say is not intended to in any way excuse her conduct, but is aimed at trying to work out what the impact of this will be on the encylopedia and trying to minimise that.

(i) RoslynSKP may herself comment at some stage, but as this is her first ever block she may not be quite sure what to do next. If she does comment here or on her talk page, those responding may want to take this into account.
(ii) Looking at the case pages, as far as I can tell she is not allowed to appeal the topic ban until nine months have passed since the close of the case. IIRC, the topic ban covers most of the work she does on Wikipedia (see here for examples of articles she has drafted and moved from her userspace in this topic area). I agree that RoslynSKP needs to demonstrate an ability to edit properly and without controversy in other areas (per Newyorkbrad), but would it not be possible to allow an appeal after a shorter period of time than nine months?
(iii) There appear to be two draft articles in her userspace: User:RoslynSKP/Gaza school of military strategy and User:RoslynSKP/Allenby's preparations for maneuver warfare. I presume she had plans for other such articles as well. Are these covered by the topic ban and will RoslynSKP be unable to work on these or similar drafts in her userspace for the next nine months?

Much depends on RoslynSKP's reaction to the block. If she does begin to recognise what she needs to do here, I hope ArbCom will be able to work out some way of helping her move forward and continue the positive aspects of her work here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nick-D

Given that this edit (which triggered Sandstein's action) can only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1, activating the topic ban seems entirely sensible. Which is a shame as I previously supported only issuing a strong warning or short duration block for the renewed edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

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

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

I opposed the remedy in question because it made the unsuspension of the topic ban the automatic consequence of any block; therefore, I'd certainly support this amendment. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't support the "automatic" nature here, I don't support it for the reason of tying hands. I would suggest that we rather enact standard discretionary sanctions for any disruption caused by RoslynSKP and leave the details to the AE admins based upon the specific incident. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the topic ban is now in force, and I don't see any reason to believe its imposition was invalid, I no longer see any need for any modification. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the remedy in a "right, you've got one chance and one chance only". If RoslynSKP gets to the point that she should be blocked, she should be topic banned. As such, I don't see that it should be changed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disinclined to grant this request, per WTT. AGK [•] 12:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Roslyn is now blocked and if this is not amended the topic ban is now in force. My impression here is that this is a user who was testing the edges and seeing what they could get away with. That being the case I think we can just let this stand as written and consider the topic ban in force. This attempt at a "parole" structure for a sanction does not appear to have worked as intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. We never envisaged that RoslynSKP would have just edited exactly how she did before, consequences be damned! AGK [•] 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an amendment is necessary in light of the recent developments. T. Canens (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recent developments simplify the matter, I don't see an amendment as being necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the proposed decision page I expressed concern when we were voting that the "trigger" for the topic-ban needed tweaking, but when there wasn't much agreement with me I let it go. Perhaps I should have made a bigger issue of it at the time. I am not sure whether, by the time of the block, RoslynSKP had finally gotten the message that her editing methods needed to change, albeit at least a week, if not a year or more, later than she should have gotten it. In any event, at this point the topic-ban stands; she has the option of requesting that it be lifted at some point if she can demonstrate an ability to edit properly and without controversy in other areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why you'd begrudge us not taking up your concern about the topic ban trigger unless you think a ban shouldn't have been triggered by Sandstein in this case. Do you? AGK [•] 02:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a point a couple of days ago when it appeared that RoslynSKP was likely to be topic-banned before I thought it was clearly needed. Had that happened I would have been troubled. When she pressed the envelope further, my concern was mitigated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 *Broadly agree with what other arbitrators have said so far. Fae, there is good advice being given by Thryduulf and Nick-D. If you follow that advice then I would be more likely to support a future amendment request. If you seek a less broad amendment request earlier than the date suggested by other arbitrators (12 March), I suggest a preliminary note asking whether such a request should be made or should be held back until 12 March (or some point thereafter). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 *I generally agree with the above, both that the request is premature at this time, and that when it is the time, I would be much more comfortable with a gradual scaling back of sanctions than a wholesale removal. I would encourage Fae to think about what shape such a scaling back would entail, and also to show more non-problematic editing activity outside the banned areas. Sexuality may be a broad area, but it is not all-encompassing, and there are many areas in which to edit with no risk of falling foul of the ban. I also agree with Newyorkbrad in that the BLP sanctions are the ones I would be least comfortable with lifting. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 04:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
+*We should either enforce time limits on appeals, or stop including them in our decisions. I prefer the former approach. Decline. (I'm also not inclined to grant this appeal on the merits, for the reasons outlined by my colleagues.) [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 == Amendment request: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute ==