Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/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:
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aspersions cast by Thryduulf | 16 July 2024 | 0/6/1 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles | none | (orig. case) | 24 February 2016 |
| Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88 | none | (orig. case) | 26 February 2016 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles
Initiated by Debresser at 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Debresser
Is the topicban for Chesdovi (talk · contribs) on ARBPIA articles that was decided upon at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi still in force?
Then can any of you please explain to me why he created an article like Palestinian wine, which gave rise to much ARBPIA-related controversy? Debresser (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Chesdovi
Statement by Darkfrog24
I see that there was an appeal of a topic-ban-related block in 2012.[2] Though the initial topic ban was for one year [3], it was later changed to indefinite. I checked the user's talk page archives and I don't see any notice of a subsequent appeal of the topic ban, successful or otherwise, though I guess Chesdovi could have removed it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Chesdovi's most recent edit to Palestinian wine is here. The article itself doesn't seem to contain any allusions to the Israel-Arab conflict, though it does mention kosher wine and Jewish wineries. If there's something in here that violates the topic ban, you could file a complaint at AE and provide diffs to the ARBPIA-related controversy in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Yes. The topic ban was extended to indefinite, and they do not seem to have tried to appeal it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. In which case this can be closed I suspect, unless Chesdovi wants to make a case for lifting the ban. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- As above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- yup --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Clarification request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88
Initiated by Hijiri88 at 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Hijiri88: Topic ban (II) arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Hijiri88
My TBAN is from the area of "Japanese culture". I have taken this to mean that I am banned from editing or discussing all topics related to "Japan" anywhere on English Wikipedia, but there is a slight grey area, in that I live in Japan and virtually all the sources I have access to are Japanese ones. I assumed that the ban was on the "topic" of Japanese culture, and usage of particular sources and casually mentioning of my editing circumstances while editing in topics completely unrelated to Japan would be acceptable. But it was recently implied that the phrase "pages related to" in the TBANs resulting from this case is not meant to be interpreted narrowly, though.
So I have a few questions:
- Since TBANs also cover brief mentions of the topic on talk pages, does this mean I am not allowed mention that I live in Japan?
- Does it include citing of Japanese-language sources (and non-Japanese sources written by Japanese people or published in Japan) in articles on non-Japanese topics?
- If citing of Japanese-language sources for factual claims is acceptable, am I still forbidden from attributing claims to Scholar X inline, if Scholar X is a Japanese citizen?
- If naming Scholar X inline is acceptable, is it still unacceptable to refer to him/her inline as "Japanese scholar X"?
- Even if the answer to all of the above is "no", am I not allowed to discuss my sources, the language they were written in, their country of origin or who wrote them on the talk page (or on RSN) if they are challenged?
A little while ago another user explicitly mentioned the Japanese nature of one of my sources, and I wasn't sure what I was allowed say in my response. Should I email users who say these things and explain my situation, and politely ask that they not mention Japan when they are discussing non-Japanese topics with me on a talk page?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Thanks for telling me. :-) For what it's worth the drafting Arb previously defined the wording here as designed to cover other areas (outside my dispute with the other user named in the case) where "disruption had occurred" (such as the disruption on Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture). I don't know how this affects my questions, so I didn't mention it initially, but then you reminded me that in the two months since the case closed ArbCom elections took place and not everyone remembers all the details. Sorry about that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion
- This case was before my time, and I didn't follow it while it was open, so no comment till I give it a look. Posting here just to note we've seen your request, because this section looks kind of empty :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)