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 Xeno (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 21 July 2010 (→‎Statement by Xeno: re Kirill, and general cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:Betacommand|Request for clarification: User:Betacommand]] none none 20 July 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: The Troubles|Request for clarification: The Troubles]] none none 20 July 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:SlimVirgin|Request for clarification: User:SlimVirgin]] none none 18 July 2010
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Ireland article names|Request for clarification: Ireland article names]] none none 29 June 2010

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: User:Betacommand

Initiated by –xenotalk at 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Xeno

I have recently marked "resolved" a thread at the bureaucrats' noticeboard (perm). However, lingering questions remain.

Betacommand was denied a rename-via-usurp to Δ by bureaucrats in 2007. In 2008, he was community banned indefinitely. In July 2009, he was provisionally unbanned by the Arbitration Committee, with terms. Terms 1 (edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection) and 3 (agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted) do not appear to have an expiration date (when compared to terms 2 and 4, which did).

Betacommand again sought the usurpation of the Δ username on or about 25 June 2010 (via IRC), which was performed by User:Deskana on 25 June [4], who later commented with respect to the off-wiki handling of the request [5]. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not remind Deskana of the previously denied request.

Betacommand begin editing as Δ (talk · contribs) on 11 July (when terms 2 and 4 of the provisional unban had lapsed). He made a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard to move his userrights from User:Betacommand to the new account at 21:49, 11 July 2010, suggesting he was "no longer under any restrictions" [6]. While none of the rights required bureaucratic intervention, I believe he made the request to have some form of bureaucratic approval of the de facto "rename". Discussion ensued, and several users (including bureaucrats) expressed concerns.

At some point, Betacommand made an off-wiki request to bureaucrat X! (talk · contribs) to transfer the userrights, which was done at 04:19, 12 July 2010 [7]. X! later commented after concerns were raised [8]. His comments indicate that Betacommand did not inform X! of the ongoing noticeboard thread.

As I see it, the questions before the committee are:

  1. Were terms 1 and 3 of the provisional unban time-limited?
  2. If not, does Betacommand's abandoning of the Betacommand (talk · contribs) account in favour of Δ (talk · contribs) present an issue (in particular for term 1)?
  3. Does the fact that Betacommand made requests off-wiki that had already been denied on wiki, or were still under discussion, present cause for concern?
  4. Is Betacommand presently under any restrictions (imposed by the Arbitration Committee or the community, see in particular the listing at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions)?
  5. Does his abandoning of his original account in favour of this new account present cause for concern (especially given that the contributions and relevant logs have not been transferred)?
Response

@Jack, Yes - had this request come via the usual means, the committee would've likely been at least pinged. As it is, the process is running backwards. The suggestion from another user below that this was brought to 'badger' is unfounded and unnecessary. The concerns being raised at BN were largely out of the bureaucrat's jurisdiction, this is why the matter was brought here. Personally, I think the rename should be allowed (though it would've been wiser to make the request through on-wiki channels), but feel the ambiguities need to be resolved as well. –xenotalk 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill, Thank you for the swift response - this resolves the questions. It should be noted that Δ has a pending request for bot approval, so #1 will (at some point) need to be amended to allow editing using approved bots. –xenotalk 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

Even if it was a restriction without a one year time limit, he hasn't violated it. He's still continued to edit under one username. There is no policy preventing a person from abandoning one account in favor of another. His last edit as Betacommand was 20:56, 11 July 2010. His first edit as Δ was 21:44, 11 July 2010. There is no crossover, no editing as two accounts. With respect to the denial of the change three years earlier, consensus can change. Even if all the restrictions were in place even now, the restrictions do not prohibit him from starting a new account and abandoning his old. This filing is badgering of this editor. This editor is trying to make a clean start, and is even trying to stay away from prior trouble areas post the expiration of his editing restrictions. Assume some good faith and give him a chance. Nothing nefarious is happening here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jack Merridew

Compare with my case; I am specifically restricted to editing with this specific user name; Betacommand would seem to be simply restricted to not using multiple accounts, i.e. the bot account. There's a connection via the old name's deletion and renaming logs, so there seems to be no real issue here, other than a clarification that it's ok. Am I missing something? FWIW, I think seeking this clarification is a good thing, and that it would probably have been the best route to have taken earlier this month. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Responding to Xeno's questions in order:

  1. To the best of my knowledge, provisions 1 and 3 were intended to be of indefinite duration, and were communicated to Betacommand as such.
  2. The rename itself is not a violation of provision 1 per se, since the provision does not require either (a) retaining the current username or (b) informing the Committee prior to changing it.
  3. This may potentially be a cause for concern, but I don't see it as a matter for the Committee at this stage; it's something that ought to be brought up in a user conduct RFC or a similar venue first.
  4. As previously noted, provisions 1 and 3 of the unban conditions remain in force. In addition to those, the provisions of the Betacommand 2 case are technically in effect, but are of limited relevance given that Betacommand is no longer operating a bot account.
  5. As in #3, this may potentially be a cause for concern on some level, but is not a violation of the restrictions imposed on him, and should be discussed by the community first.

Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: The Troubles

Initiated by Stifle (talk) at 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by Stifle

I request clarification of {{Troubles restriction}} (see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case) to confirm that 1RR applies per a 24-hour period rather than per calendar day, as has been alleged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bdell555. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

This is a community extension of the remedy (ArbCom's remedy was 1RR per week). The community routinely uses the word "day" or "24 hours" as if they are synonymous (that's certainly how I've designed the community restrictions that I've proposed); the intention is not that it is "per calendar" day otherwise it would specifically state that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Standard view is day=24 hours. Otherwise we'd run into all kinds of shenanigans depending on our editors timezones. SirFozzie (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with SirFozzie; the conventional meaning of "day" when discussing revert limitations is a continuos 24-hour period rather than a calendar day. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:SlimVirgin

Initiated by Tryptofish (talk) at 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

SlimVirgin notified: [9]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have two (2) specific questions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks, which states:

"User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation."

I also note that this caution was pointed out again at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#SlimVirgin.

  1. Is the message of this caution about personal attacks still applicable today? (As a matter of common sense, it appears to me that WP:NPA is always in effect, but I recognize that an argument can be made that this arbitration case occurred a long time ago.)
  2. If so, does this message apply as well to other content areas, beyond those that were the subjects of these arbitration decisions? (Again, it seems to me that it does, as a matter of common sense, but I recognize that it might not.)

I am specifically concerned about personal attacks directed at me and at other editors at pages about animal rights, broadly defined. The most recent occurrence of these was this: [10] at Talk:PETA, but there have been many, many other such instances. My bottom line reason for asking these questions is that I would like such personal attacks to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for that answer, Steve. And I definitely hear you with respect to not making this an arbitration-by-proxy. Based on what you said, I have to ask: what does your answer mean in terms of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of my potentially requesting Arbitration Enforcement with respect to the personal attacks that I allege? It sounds like you might be saying that there is nothing to enforce. On the other hand, you also indicate that someone would take past records into account, somewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both very much for your time and answers here. That is very clear and fully answers the questions that I had. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I think cautions are one-time occurrences, rather than ongoing sanctions. In that sense, I don't think that the caution is "in effect", but I also don't think it was "in effect" five minutes after it passed. As you note WP:NPA applies to all editors at all times, in all domains. In that sense, SlimVirgin is, like any other editor, under an ongoing prohibition against personal attacks. In the hypothetical event of an editor previously cautioned against personal attacks being sanctioned by ArbCom for personal attacks, it seems reasonable to believe that a past record of formal cautions would be taken into account. I am deliberately refraining from commenting on (or even examining) the personal attacks you allege from SlimVirgin, as I do not want this request for clarification to turn into a proxy ArbCom case on the subject. Steve Smith (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my view that ArbCom-issued cautions are not suitable for WP:AE enforcement. Steve Smith (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pretty much agree with Steve here; I believe cautions/warnings etc. are similar to putting something on the record - it is a formal reminder that will likely be taken into account should the behavior occur again. Only restrictions are suitable for arbitration enforcement. I'd also comment that I have a difficult time seeing the personal attack in the diff provided - less than perfectly civil, yes but looking at the overall situation, incivility doesn't seem to be limited to one editor. Dispute resolution looks like the way to go here. Shell babelfish 03:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Ireland article names

Initiated by RA (talk) at 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

This request for clarification relates to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. The case itself related to the titles of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. However it touched on the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. In concluding the case, ArbCom passed two motions. The first of these related to the titles of the Ireland articles. The second related to the use of the words Ireland and Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. Notice of the motions can be see here.

A thread has been opened at Talk:British Isles relating to the use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland in the lead to that article. During the course of the tread it was said that this matter was covered by an ArbCom motion and editors were told to follow that motion. The relevance of the ArbCom motion is disputed.

Can we clarify:

  • Is the second motion a part of the resolution to the Ireland articles names' case?
  • Is the second motion binding on editors?
  • Does the second motion recognise the Ireland-related MOS as reflecting consensus in resolving the matter?
  • Does the second motion enjoin editors not to re-hash the debate with respect to use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia (i.e. not only use with respect to the titles of Ireland and Republic of Ireland)?

Finally, though not brought up by any editor during the course of the tread: with respect to WP:CCC, does ArbCom have comment with regards to how WP:CCC would relate to the consensus at the Ireland-related MOS and use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland across the encyclopaedia?

--RA (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowden

  • There was (and is) no question that the official name of the state as established by all sources is Ireland
  • The disambiguation agreement means that the article is called Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland
  • The normal practice in the use of the name in articles is [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] unless there is a risk of confusion with the island, this conforms with the ruling above and consensus
  • The use of "Republic of Ireland" as the name of the state remains a political POV position adopted by some editors - in effect perpetuating the British Government's position prior to the Good Friday Agreement. While the British Government has now moved on and uses Ireland nor ROI (as do the EU and the UN), there is an extreme Unionist position which seeks to perpetuate the ROI name. (FAD I don't think RA is in this camp)
  • In the case of the BI article the disagreement is over wether there is a possible confusion of the use of the official name of the state in a paragraph which talks about the names of the states that occupy the geographical area.
  • RA has been arguing that the Arbcom ruling prevents anyone challenging the use of ROI if any editor thinks there is a risk of confusion. He has also accused editors who have taken the position that there is no confusion are breaking consensus or of rehashing the debate. This is a nonsense position and unnecessarily provocative. Bringing it here smacks of forum shopping. --Snowded TALK 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

With respect to the last point, I made this request for clarification after Snoweded questioned the applicability of the relevant motion (not for the first time): "This has nothing to do with the Arbcom resolution which is far narrower in its meaning that your attempted use. As long as people make that error I will correct it. I can see no consensus that I am failing to respect." (diff)

Also I am not interested in artificially maintaining "consensus" through any kind of gaming, hence my question about how WP:CCC relates to this motion. --RA (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing

According to what @RA is stating above, what is to stop any editor who wants to use "Republic of Ireland" to simply cry "I'm confused", and invoke the WP:IMOS? Or as in this case, to refuse to craft lede paragraphs in such a way as to very simply avoid confusion? And quiet frankly, I don't see where the IMOS is *not* being followed. The IMOS currently states:

  • In other places prefer use of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use [[Republic of Ireland]] (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
  • An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] should be preferred and the island should be referred to the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").

The first clause uses an example that most editors (me included) wouldn't object to. But it certainly doesn't cover the current case. The second clause clearly sets out that where the state forms a major component of the topic (which in the current case, it does), we should stick with using the formal title. This example is far closer to the usage within the lede of British Isles. We've discussed this and a consensus appears to have emerged on the article Talk page, and RA bringing this here looks a little sour grapish. --HighKing (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments by User:Carcharoth below (it's important to be precise in this debate/discussion)... You state:
  • part of the reason the unusual step was taken here of (after a set framework of discussion) locking down the article names I'd love to hear an explanation of what you mean by this. I've previously requested that Arbcom clarify what actually happened to result in a "lock down of article names", because that definitely isn't what the Arbcom-sanctioned process was intended to do. It was a much larger process to allow the larger Wikipedia community decide on all manner of things relating to the term "Republic of Ireland". Making statements like you have done just gets me fuming at how that process was organized and run, and how Arbcom came to their decision without any explanation or visibility into their reasoning for that final decision.
  • The lockdown didn't apply to the names used in article text - correct. Except, very explicitly, this is a part of what the *process* was designed to do. The Arbcom decision to merely lock down the article names until Sept 2011 totally ignored the months of discussions, which were a very important part of the process (which failed). The Arbcom decision was taken *outside* the scope of the process (which had many parts), and (as mentioned by BritishWatcher above) resolved absolutely nothing. As a ruling, it essentially picked and chose the parts of the process to pay attention to, and as such is based (hopefully unintentionally) on an overwhelming British POV-biased so-called consensus.
  • have no problem with periodic revisiting of old arguments, as long as progress elsewhere has been made in the interim period. Where is this stated in the ruling exactly? Or in the conditions of the process? Or is this just being retro-fitted on now?
Note. We've all abided by the Arbcom ruling. Nobody has reopened the debate. But the bad feeling runs *deeper* than prior to the process, and this nit-picking by RA is a recipe to re-open the entire debate. --HighKing (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BritishWatcher

The dispute over on British Isles at the moment about if Republic of Ireland can be used highlights that the resolution to the Ireland naming dispute has yet to be resolved fully. In the same paragraph the island of Ireland is mentioned, it is there for helpful to the readers for Republic of Ireland to be used in that introduction when talking about the state.

Republic of Ireland can be used when there is a need to avoid ambiguity, this is one of those clear cases where it is justified and a clarification about this subject would be helpful to prevent such a dispute causing problems in the future. We all accept the country is called Ireland, the trouble is just saying Ireland clearly causes confusion sometimes because there also happens to be an island called Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My own view, as an arbitrator who was not on the committee at the time of that case, is that the answers to the questions you pose are yes, no, yes, and yes. Steve Smith (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, let me amend my answer to the fourth question: the motion enjoins editors not to rehash needlessly the debate over Ireland names. In no way does it impede the normal operation of WP:CCC, which is why I say, in response to the second question, that it is not effectively binding. Steve Smith (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial comment here is that while consensus can change, part of the reason the unusual step was taken here of (after a set framework of discussion) locking down the article names was to allow people to focus their energies elsewhere more productively. The lockdown didn't apply to the names used in article text (recognising that this requires more nuanced discussion), and I appreciate that some valid arguments are being made at Talk:British Isles, but I would hope that some people would step back and look at the larger picture there. Consider whether the discussions there are making good use of the time and resources of editors, and whether progress at other articles or in other areas of the same article is being impeded because people go round and round in circles over the same issues for years on end? I have no problem with periodic revisiting of old arguments, as long as progress elsewhere has been made in the interim period. Has this been the case? Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to HighKing, when using the phrase "lockdown", I was referring to this: Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years. Passed 7 to 0, 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC). This is what led to the motion in March 2010 (a bit further down that page) that locked the names in place until September 18, 2011. This was done after a lengthy process that involved much discussion and a poll (this is what I mean by after a set framework of discussion). You say the process failed, but what ArbCom was saying by the motion it passed in March 2010 is that in our opinion the process was a success (this may be the fundamental problem here, as if you disagree with that, there is not much left that you can do). It was the second motion that dealt with the issue of names in articles, and directed people to work with the then-existing consensus on the Ireland manual of style and to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes. The specific dispute here may or may not have some merit, but I looked at the entire talk page and I saw people arguing endlessly over the names (again). The final point, where I state that I hope progress has been made elsewhere, is a personal opinion. If I give examples it may help. If an editor makes no edits other than those to debates relating to Ireland naming disputes, that can lead to that editor losing perspective. If an article in Ireland topic area has little or no edits made to it or its talk page other than edits related to a naming dispute, that does not ultimately contribute to the aim of improving the article. If the various projects active in this area could summarise what they have achieved in the few months, and how much of those efforts have been stymied or forgotten as people are drawn back into naming debates, that could help. If people taking part in these naming debates have been productively working on other stuff in parallel, I will immediately apologise, but I do think a key aim when dealing with perennial debates is to not let them suck resources away from other work that needs doing. If, for example, some articles improved to good article or featured article status, that would be a measure of progress, even if the reviews failed because of naming disputes, it would put the naming dispute at the end of the list of things to be sorted on an article. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=374611755"