Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aspersions cast by Thryduulf | 16 July 2024 | 0/7/1 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Prem Rawat | Motion | (orig. case) | 8 October 2023 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Historical elections | 19 July 2024 |
Requests for clarification and amendment
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: Prem Rawat
Initiated by Extraordinary Writ at 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- All pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- All pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.
- This remedy should be rescinded; sample motions here.
Statement by Extraordinary Writ
This is a low-priority one, but I figured now was as good a time for it as any. Prem Rawat, an Indian spiritual figure, author, and speaker, is considered a contentious topic under a remedy passed in a 2008 case (back in the days of "article probation"!) and occasionally updated since. I'd argue (as I suggested a while back) that there's no longer a need for this level of restriction 15 years after the fact. Most obviously, there hasn't been a single logged sanction in over a decade, which makes it really hard to argue CT is still needed. There have only been a small number of awareness alerts in that amount of time, and most editors involved in the original disputes haven't edited in ages. And while there have been a handful of flare-ups in the last few years, there's no reason why our usual processes aren't sufficient to contain any disruption, particularly since the main article is already subject to the BLP contentious-topic designation. For a request like this, you should ultimately be asking yourselves "if I were getting this request for the first time, would I support [CT]?", and I think the answer to that is a resounding no. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by AndyTheGrump
I've had occasional involvement with the Rawat biography, and from my experience would agree with Extraordinary Writ's suggestion that the current restrictions would seem unnecessary. There are clearly still Rawat enthusiasts about who would like to add their spin, and no doubt opponents likewise, but they don't seem to be active to anything like the extent that led to the restrictions in the first place. Existing WP:BLP policy (much tighter now) is probably sufficient to deal with most issues, as long as experienced but non-partisan eyes are kept on the article. Other than having to persuade the occasional over-enthusiastic believer that we don't have to report everything and anything the man does, and we aren't going to base the whole thing on primary sources, the biggest problem with the article (from Wikipedia's point of view) is that Rawat doesn't get much said about him either in the media of in academic works these days, making the whole thing look rather dated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Courcelles
As a practical matter, I’d say NEWBLPBAN and ARBIPA are, between them, entirely covering this designation to the point it could be removed without actually changing anything. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
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.
Prem Rawat: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Prem Rawat: Arbitrator views and discussion
- A reasonable set of arguments; I am inclined to accept the request. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Absent any objections I'm OK with this. I'd also be OK with leaving it in place (I don't see CT as being intrusive in the way that Full or Semi can be), but I feel that if someone makes a reasonable request to lift CT we should oblige. SilkTork (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm good with removing this CT. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Motion: Prem Rawat
The Prem Rawat case is amended by striking the remedy designating Prem Rawat as a contentious topic (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat § Contentious topic designation). Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.
Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Support
- Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- GeneralNotability (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Izno (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- SilkTork (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- Comments by arbitrators