Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipediocracy-related conduct | 21 October 2024 | 4/1/2 | |
| Marine 69-71 | Motions | 26 October 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Sexology | none | (orig. case) | 18 September 2013 |
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: Sexology
Initiated by Sceptre (talk) at 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (clerk)
- 99.192.90.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
- Elaqueate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
- Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
- Daira Hopwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here (Notified of DS by Penwhale and thus affected)
Statement by Sceptre
Remedy 4.1 of Sexology, "Discretionary Sanctions", states that discretionary sanctions may be authorised "for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification". This is mostly a set theory/syntactical question: does the remedy refer to the intersection of the categories, or the union of the categories? My view of it was the former, but Penwhale believes it applies to the latter. It may be prudent for the Committee to state what its intent was. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
In sanctions, the word "and" generally refers to the union of the topics mentioned. Collect (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Penwhale
First things first: I have added the names of the 4 editors I notified of the Sexology DS and have notified them of this discussion (as they're directly affected by this request). Now that's out of the way: That wording really is not the best thing in the world. (As Sceptre pointed out, it creates different interpretations.) The thing is that the intersection of the two clauses... In fact, I'm having trouble pointing out the intersection of the clauses, because I believe that such intersection would cover a very limited set of articles that the committee would have named those articles directly in the remedy. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Daira Hopwood
First, let me state that the category of paraphilias is a rag-bag of things that were at one time considered weird or bad by privileged cisgender psychiatrists blinkered to their own prejudices -- including but not limited to:
- engaging in common and harmless human sexual behaviours such as masturbation using a dildo or vibrator, or finding it kinky to cross-dress;
- propensity to commit, or history of committing criminal acts such as rape and sexual abuse of children;
- having a trans* gender identity.
Of course no reasonable person would consider these to have anything to do with one another.
[Aside: well, okay, maybe there's a somewhat larger than coincidental overlap between the trans* and kink/fetish communities. But for people who are kinky and trans, it's not being trans that is their kink, if you see what I mean ;-)]
See here for links to explanations of how deeply problematic the whole idea is and how it interferes with clear thought about any of the things it refers to, including this strongly argued and well-supported proposal to remove the "severely flawed" category of paraphilias from psychiatric diagnostic manuals.
It is therefore somewhat problematic to have an arbitration case that purports to be covering all of these things that have nothing to do with each other, especially if no-one is sure whether it's supposed to be a union or an intersection.
It's also problematic to add people retrospectively,
- to a case they have had no input into, would probably have disagreed with the entire premise of, and that is entirely unrelated to the present discussion about WP:AT, WP:BLP, MOS:IDENTITY etc.;
- especially if it is disproportionately trans* people and allies who are added;
- and if they are added as a consequence of calling out transphobia in a debate triggered by widespread public criticism of Wikipedia policies that particularly affect trans* people.
--Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
While "paraphilia" might not be the most sensitive term in all situations, it is a term that is used in sexology (read the original case for evidence of this). The arbitration committee are not making a value judgement about anything. Whether it is a useful classification, or whether any particular activity should or should not be classified as a paraphilia are irrelevant.
t may also include: In more expansive language I believe that the scope should be interpreted as applying to: All articles dealing with
- Issues relating to the topic of transgenderness; and/or
- Issues relating to transgender people; and/or
- The classification of activities as paraphilias; and/or
- the classification of a specific activity as a paraphilia; and/or
- The classification "paraphilia".
I am not sure whether it also includes
- Activities classed as paraphilias.
- Individuals who engage in activities classed as paraphilias
My gut feeling is that the first of these two bullets is probably included but the second is not. Clarification would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Semantic musing by NE Ent
And is inherently semantically ambiguous and requires English speakers to infer meaning from context. For example, the narrator of Rainy Days and Mondays would clearly be sad on a Friday with precipitation or a sunny 23 September 2013, whereas the predicate of If You're Happy and You Know It clearly implies that joyous children lacking self awareness would not be clapping. Suggest using or where intent is union and the both .. and construct where the committee wishes to specify intersection. NE Ent 09:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Performed admin action related to this request, so recuse. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Recuse. --Rschen7754 05:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- In my opinion, Penwale's construction of the clause is the correct one. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: in general, I'd say that articles about individuals who engage in activities classed as paraphilias are usually not covered by the the current wording of the remedy, though I add the usual caveat that discretionary sanctions can be applied on the basis of the contents of the specific edit (which means that, in theory, there may be a case where an edit to the biography of a person who engages in those activities can be sanctioned pursuant to this provision, although, personally, I'd probably prefer invoking WP:BLPBAN). Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Penwhale, Collect and Salvio. NW (Talk) 19:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Yes to all, including the last one if it is a significant point of their notability and/or the point of dispute in an article. As an analogy, a couple months ago, I wrote that the only thing that WP:ARBPIA applies to in the Syrian Civil War article only where the article talks about incursions with the Israelis near the Golan Heights. NW (Talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- And I agree with NW. Courcelles 22:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- If in doubt assume the greater rather than the lesser. And preferably avoid inappropriate behaviour on any article, especially after being warned or advised that such behaviour is unwelcome. The community and ArbCom would tend to support an admin who applied sanctions where the behaviour was clearly inappropriate even if there was some doubt regarding if the article were under DS; but - conversely - there would be some concern if an admin applied sanctions for edits on an article which was clearly under DS but there was some doubt if the user was behaving inappropriately. It's the inappropriate behaviour we wish to eliminate, not the general editing of a topic - and editors should not feel inhibited from editing in a topic area that's under DS. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)