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 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 2 June 2014 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: helpful comment). 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 0/1/0
[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: Falun Gong 2 none (orig. case) 2 June 2014
Amendment request: COFS Motion (orig. case) 1 June 2014
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: Falun Gong 2

Initiated by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) at 00:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Falun Gong 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Amendment request: Falun Gong 2 / Motion
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request
  • Amendment request: Falun Gong 2
  • Lifting the misbehaving user's indefinite topic ban lead to disruptive behavior, despite promises.

Statement by TheSoundAndTheFury

Last month, User:Ohconfucius appealed to ArbCom to lift the indefinite topic ban that prevented him from editing Falun Gong-related articles.

In his request he stated "Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on [Falun Gong]." He added "if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG." Instead, Ohconfucius said he wanted the ban lifted so that he could return to good standing and stop walking on eggshells when it comes to China-related articles.

On the basis of these promises Arbcom agreed to provisionally lift the topic ban for a period of one year, provided Ohconfucius not relapse into problematic editing patterns. One arbitrator noted the "request that Ohconfucius steer well clear of matters of controversy in this area."

Two weeks later, Ohconfucius returned to POV editing on a controversial Falun Gong article:

  • [2] Deletes what appears to be verifiable information on the grounds that he didn't like the source, which he referred to as a Falun Gong "front-organisation." (The source cited was a major Israeli newspaper, but a translation of the article was hosted on a Falun Gong website).
  • [3] Alters the source of torture allegations in apparent attempt to make them seem less credible (allegations were actually made by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and confirmed through extensive investigative reporting). Edit summary calls it a copy edit.
  • [4] More of same. Edits article to (falsely) depict allegations from third party sources as coming from Falun Gong sources. Again, I imagine the intend was to make the reports seem less credible.

This is not the first time Ohconfucius has reneged on promises to refrain from editing on Falun Gong. He has on numerous occasions said he would stop editing in this area, and once even briefly "retired" with the apparent goal of trying to avoid sanctions (then promptly continued editing under another account). Given the opportunity he seems unable to avoid this subject, I suggest the topic ban be reinstated.

Statement by EdJohnston

The committee might decline this on the grounds that they are not usually the first resort for enforcement. I did examine one diff of those submitted here and I agree that Ohconfucius's change was not a good idea. A Wall Street Journal reporter, Ian Johnson, got a Pulitzer in 2001 for a series of articles including this one about deaths of Falun Gong adherents in police custody. His statement that the people died was based on his own reporting. Changing the wording of this to say 'Falun Gong alleged..' seems ill advised. Also it was a bad idea to mark this in the edit summary as 'ce'. I hope that Ohconfucius will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statement from OhConfucius. I also would welcome brief comments on whether this should be addressed here or by the admins on arbitration enforcement, though the procedural issue shouldn't get in the way of addressing the merits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also awaiting statements from Ohconfucius. To the issue Newyorkbrad raises, I don't see any issue addressing this here as that's where it's already been raised, but handling at AE would also be fine as the motion specifically allows reinstatement of the ban as an AE action if that were determined to be necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That didn't take long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: COFS

Initiated by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
COFS arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 7
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Callanecc

The Scientology topic is currently covered by both article probation and discretionary sanctions which allow a much greater latitude to deal with disruptive behaviour. I'm requesting that the Committee vacate the article probation provision in preference to the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I can see no real reason for the article to have redundant sanctions to the broader topic, and can't see any reason for the redundancy, with perhaps the one proviso that if for whatever reason the remaining sanctions get lifted, perhaps having the article probation restored or at least consideration of such restoration. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 1 June 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

  • As a practical matter, the discretionary sanctions supersede the article probation. I'm not sure that any formal action is necessary, but will defer to the arbitrators who led the recent DS review and the related update/clean-up motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be no need for a separate article probation now that the area is under standard DS, and we should vacate it to avoid confusion. Proposing motion. T. Canens (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intuitively I agre with Brad, but I'm fine with doing so. NativeForeigner Talk 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I should probably know the answer to: wasn't this situation handled in the wording of the relatively new DS motions? Why is this motion even needed? Isn't it kind of like proposing a motion that "policy will be followed"? Sure, it's hard to vote against, but I don't get the point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Remedy 7 of the COFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed under standard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case.

There are currently 11 active arbitrators for purposes of this motion, so a majority is 6.
Support:
  1. T. Canens (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NativeForeigner Talk 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. LFaraone 02:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Simple enough to do for housekeeping. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yep,  Roger Davies talk 09:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I suppose it's quicker to just stop whining and support than ask questions, but this certainly seems unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=611276638"