Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TomStar81 (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 5 December 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Ireland article names Motion (orig. case) 2 December 2023
Amendment request: Horn of Africa none (orig. case) 5 December 2023
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 18 June 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!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. 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.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
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
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Amendment request: Ireland article names

Motion enacted. firefly ( t · c ) 17:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Ireland article names arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names (2009
  2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names 2 (2011)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request


Information about amendment request
  • Project page's talk page not project page its self.
  • Same as above.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

The likes of Template:IECOLL-talk and Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Ireland state that discussions relating to the Ireland articles must take place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but should it not instead link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as the project's talk page not the project its self is where discussions for issues/improving articles generally take place. The current linking to the project page rather than its talk page is confusing and has lead to things like this given it suggests the project page and not the project talk page is the required location for discussion. Changing to say the project's talk page would save this confusion.

@Izno: Many other discussions like AFD, ANI, AIV and SPI take place on the project page its self. Yes I know there may not have been many problems with the motion but clarifying it would be helpful and reduce confusion. Indeed perhaps we should just remove it like Scientology last year was removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I was unable to find the original motion (though I did find the 2009 and 2011 ones) as well though I'm pretty sure when I was reading about this back around 2017 I found it. The question is where is the decision diff/archive today? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: This isn't a prelude involvement. I have participated in a few discussions but I don't have intention to start any Ireland/ROI RM discussions and in any case I could do with the current restriction. As to rescinding the restrictions I weakly support doing so since it would further reduce confusion, on the other hand the restriction has been in place for so long and most discussion at least more recent will be at IECOLL's talk page rather than the article's talk page and it serves as a useful place to keep such discussions together but yes repealing it probably seems best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

I support Izno's proposal to return the discussions to the article talk pages. Fifteen years ago there was so much traffic at both Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland from people demanding or opposing name changes that it was impossible to get anything else discussed. Nowadays, there are only a few requests a year (one so far in 2023), and the discussions are short. I think that the requirement to discuss article names at IECOLL should be ended, and the notice at the top of the talk pages removed. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Perhaps it's time to retire WP:IECOLL. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

re: SilkTork. I've searched the post-2009 arbitration archives for "Wikpedia:WikiProject" and I've not found any other live remedies or amendments that direct comments to a WikiProject page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ireland article names: Clerk notes

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

Ireland article names: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This seems like an overly literal interpretation of the motion, and users seem to have understood that the talk page is where it is most appropriate to comment about the issue. You cite a discussion from 7 years ago—which appears to be the only such case of mistaken use—which is not particularly convincing to me that this needs to change. I am further contemplating removal of the previous remedy; even though that talk page is being used for the purpose indicated in the remedy, I see nothing to suggest the discussions which took place there could not simply have taken place at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Izno (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can support Izno's idea as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussions at WP:IECOLL have been spaced out and reasonably short, indicating the possibility that discussions at the article talkpage would be equally spaced out and short. The advantage of holding the discussions on the article talkpage is that there is an easily accessible record of the discussions and their outcomes. I would assume those who watchlist IECOLL would also watchlist Republic of Ireland. If we remove the remedy then Crouch, Swale's query becomes moot; however, I wonder if it's worth checking to see if there are other remedies which point to a project page rather than a talkpage. It is somewhat of a trivial matter, however it would be more helpful to direct people to the appropriate spot. But only if it's actually easy to check and update any links. SilkTork (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Thryduulf. SilkTork (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also open to retiring this restriction. Given his past difficulties, I ask Crouch, Swale to think long and hard about the benefits and drawbacks of editing in such a tense topic area if this is a prelude to his involvement --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Ireland article names - Required location of move discussions rescinded

The two Ireland page name move discussion restrictions enacted in June 2009 are rescinded.

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Interesting that these were never documented anywhere like Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions or on a case page anywhere. Anyway, support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

Amendment request: Horn of Africa

Initiated by TomStar81 at 18:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Horn of Africa arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. "This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee."


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


Information about amendment request
  • "This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee."
  • I am seeking clarification of this case as it relates to other cases concerning the middle east to determine how this should be interpreted as effecting northern regions within the framework of the existing Arbitration cases that have been ruled on to date.


Statement by TomStar81

When this case was initially heard there was some semblance of peace in the greater Horn of Africa region. Accordingly then, the case itself was understood by both me and others writing with regards to it as being the nations explicitly mentioned above, which lie to the west, south, and southeast as the greater Horn of Africa region. Now, however, we are beginning to get articles on military action such as those described at Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. These actions, and the base for them, lie to the North of the Horn of Africa - specifically the Red Sea and Yemen (at the moment), although the Gulf of Aden and or Saudi Arabia could eventually be drawn into this as well. Given that the ruling for the Horn of Africa arbitration case never explicitly took up the matter of the northern region of the Horn of Africa, I am seeking clarification from the committee as to whether or not the authorized discretionary sanctions may be reasonably construed as including the two major bodies of water (Red Sea and Gulf of Aden), and whether or not Yemen and Saudi Arabia could be reasonably construed under the current definition of the authorized sanctions as "adjoining areas". I point out that the committee already has ARBIA cases on which it has ruled, but to my knowledge the committee has never officially dictated what extent if any its ruling should be applied to adjoining bodies of water.

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.

Horn of Africa: Clerk notes

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

Horn of Africa: Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1188484554"