Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
I think we can do with out the "clown car" descriptors, thanks |
|||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
=== Statement by MarkBernstein === |
=== Statement by MarkBernstein === |
||
=== Statement by Additional |
=== Statement by Additional parties: <span style="font-size:50%">{{Ping|Ryulong}} {{Ping|Tarc}} {{Ping|The Devil's Advocate}} {{Ping|Tutelary}} {{Ping|ArmyLine}} {{Ping|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} {{Ping|Xander756}} {{Ping|TitaniumDragon}} {{Ping|Loganmac}} {{Ping|Willhesucceed}}</span> === |
||
=== Statement by TKOP === |
=== Statement by TKOP === |
||
*'''Support Amendment''' - A wise narrowing of the overly broad existing restrictions. Just narrow it to GamerGate, and if trouble brews again, widen a bit further. That some have been flirting the restrictions, and with the general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go is telling.[[User:Two_kinds_of_pork|Two kinds of pork]]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Two_kinds_of_pork|'''Makin'''']]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Two_kinds_of_pork|<span style="color:#cc0000">Bacon</span>]]</sub></span> 05:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Support Amendment''' - A wise narrowing of the overly broad existing restrictions. Just narrow it to GamerGate, and if trouble brews again, widen a bit further. That some have been flirting the restrictions, and with the general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go is telling.[[User:Two_kinds_of_pork|Two kinds of pork]]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Two_kinds_of_pork|'''Makin'''']]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Two_kinds_of_pork|<span style="color:#cc0000">Bacon</span>]]</sub></span> 05:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:05, 17 March 2015
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Case name | Closed |
---|---|
Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|Clarification request: Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]] | none | none | 16 March 2015 |
Amendment request: GamerGate | none | (orig. case) | 17 March 2015 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
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!)
- 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: Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
Initiated by Yaris678 at 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Yaris678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Yaris678
I have tweaked the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions in a draft version at User:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions. I don't believe this proposed wording changes the meaning of the text but I do believe it makes it easier to follow, especially for those not familiar with the workings of ArbCom.
The table below list these changes with an explanation of each one. I would appreciate it if the committee would consider these changes for implementation.
A Text in current wording edited by Roger Davies at 11:15, 11 March 2015 |
B Text in proposed wording edited by Yaris678 at 10:42, 12 March 2015 |
Explanation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Lead | Discretionary sanctions seek to maintain an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles, by allowing administrators to impose restrictions on editors that severely or persistently disrupt that environment. Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks. | This will enable the page to explain what discretionary sanctions are relatively quickly in a way that Wikipedia users appreciate elsewhere on the site, including on policy and procedure pages. | |
2.1 | Decorum | Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. | Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. | Although these terms are explained in the "Definitions" section, people may jump to one of these sections and wonder what the terms are. Providing Wikilinks addresses this. In the proposed text, wikilinks are not provided if an abbreviation occurs soon after a previous explanation or wikilink for the term. |
2.2 | Expectations of administrators | Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement. | Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement. | |
2.3 | Sanctions | Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE. | Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE. | |
3 | Sanctions | Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. | Uninvolved administrators are authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe to be necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project, including:
|
Bulletise list and re-order sentence to make it easier to follow. |
4 | Appeals by sanctioned editors | 3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". | 3. submit a request for amendment at requests for amendment ("ARCA"). | Consistency with point 2 of the list. |
Moved from other sections
- In reply to Coldacid I'm happy to lose the word "only". Yaris678 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to GoodDay Adding in the words "broadly construed" sounds like a good idea. Yaris678 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Thryduulf That was just to avoid using a singular they or similar. But happy to go there if you think it helps avoid the idea that we need more than one. i.e. change to "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe..." Yaris678 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Roger Davies The "severely or persistently" language is taken straight from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Roger Davies Is this something that can't be addressed by removing the word "only" as I suggested above? Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Roger Davies I've got no problem with this being rolled into a housekeeping motion. On the other point... I was very careful to not touch the bar. Can you enlighten me on how this was raised? If you think this is the wrong venue for such a discussion, can I suggest User talk:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions? Yaris678 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- N.B. Discussion now appears above at #Statement by coldacid. Yaris678 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- In reply to Thryduulf That was just to avoid using a singular they or similar. But happy to go there if you think it helps avoid the idea that we need more than one. i.e. change to "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place reasonable measures that they believe..." Yaris678 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by coldacid
@Yaris678: I think the part that "raises the bar" is Sanctions may only be used in authorised areas of conflict and include topic bans and temporary blocks.
In particular, the "may only" part should probably be just "may", although since I'm not an arb I look forward to one of them correcting me. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDay
The broadly construde part of my own Arb restriction is quite clear to me. On the 2 occassions that I breached it (on my own talkpage), the result was a 1-week block & a 1-month block. The question might be, are editors under arb restrictions being dealt with evenly when they breach. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent
- Ds-Alerts are a techno-bureaucratic abomination which should be marked historical as soon as possible. Let's look at the wording: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding See #topic codes for options, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is blah blah
- Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
- This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
- What rubbish. In other words, I pretty much have to lie / prevaricate, for the following reasons:
- "This message is informational only" Do you think I just wasted too much of time reading through "To see whether a user has been Alerted to discretionary sanctions, ..." and doing that nonsense for "information only?" No, I think the editor is acting like a dweeb and it is my intent to rat them out at WP:AE if it continues.
- "Don't hesitate to contact me " Actually, I'd greatly prefer it if you hesitate. If I thought there's any chance addressing you like a reasonable person would work, I'd have done it already rather than dealing with the ds/alert nonsense.
- (Not really important, but) "authorised" "Discretionary sanctions is" "familiarise" ... do I sound like a Brit/Aussie/Kiwi/Indian et. al? I'm an American: Baseball, Mom, Apple Pie and "sanctions are," "authorized," "familiarize." I respect your dialect of English please respect mine.
- Ds/alert are dehumanizing interaction for both the notifier and notifiee, contrary to the gestalt of the collaboration ideal of Wikipedia. The barriers to entry are over complicated instructions are the danger of getting sanctions if you post an alert 364 days after the last one. I understand the history; the newer system is an improvement over the prior "angst over warnings" system. But it's an unnecessary Rube Goldberg. We already have an existing, simple, easily and widely understood system for notifying and then enforcing remedies: the WP:3RR system. Please just use that. NE Ent 08:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
On point 3, add a bullet for the original omitted text "or other reasonable measure". Otherwise, these are great suggestions and I agree with all the other wordsmithing feedback submitted thus far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
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 case request or provide additional information.
Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion
- On a first read I'm inclined to agree with 1, 2 and 4 without comment. Point 3 though changes "any uninvolved administrator" to "uninvolved administrators", which could be interpreted as meaning an administrator may no longer act alone. I like the rest of the change though. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- So far I'm with Thrydulf. Yaris687's suggested change seems to work. Of course, I may have missed something being still green. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like I did. It's probably better handled in a general housekeeping motion with other issues as Roger suggests. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Yaris678, I'm afraid I got the wrong end of the stick when you were asking at WT:AC about clarifications. I'd assumed you had some major points that needed urgently sorting ... As you know, DS is a committee procedure (with the force of policy) and changes can only be made by motion. Looking at your suggestions, none are urgent so best is to address them in the next housekeeping DS motion (probably in a couple of months). Incidentally, Point One is inaccurate and explicitly raises the bar at which DS can be imposed, which I'm sure was not intended. Thanks very much for your input, Roger Davies talk 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yaris678 To clarify, DS isn't about "[imposing] restrictions on editors that severely or persistently disrupt that environment", that can be done by admin under normal admin discretion. Instead, it allows admins deal with any misconduct, even minor misconduct, in sensitive/hot button/tinderbox articles. ie zero tolerance. Roger Davies talk 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Coldacid Yes, you make a good point there too. DS is typically for "edits about, or pages relating to [topic]" and are also about exporting disputes into fresh areas outside the specific area of conflict, Roger Davies talk 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Amendment request: GamerGate
Initiated by Rhoark at 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- [1]
- [2]
- [diff of notification Additional party clown car: @Ryulong: @Tarc: @The Devil's Advocate: @Tutelary: @ArmyLine: @DungeonSiegeAddict510: @Xander756: @TitaniumDragon: @Loganmac: @Willhesucceed:]
- Information about amendment request
- Create an additional remedy, hereafter termed "standard topic ban (II)" constructed as follows: Any editor restricted per this remedy is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about (a) Gamergate, (b) sexism in video games, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
Convert all existing restrictions under standard topic ban (I) or functionally identical to standard topic ban (I) to standard topic ban (II). Any uninvolved administrator may henceforth apply either standard topic ban I or II as a discretionary sanction, as seems most appropriate to prevent disruption.
Statement by Rhoark
Apologies if this request is improper in any way, but as an affected party I would like to request amendment to a sanction I believe is ineffective. The question of what constitutes a "gender-related dispute", and the continuing off-site attention to the matter is causing more disruption than I believe would result from a narrower topic ban on the affected individuals. Except for one of them, I doubt those that are not already indef blocked would actually disrupt other gender controversy pages due to sour grapes (especially after 3 months to cool off), so its mostly a WP:BEANS restriction. I've also heard it claimed the resulting off-site campaigning is further discouraging female participation in Wikipedia, which is a hot-button issue. I don't have firsthand knowledge of that. I share @TheRedPenOfDoom:'s concerns about setting a precedent of bending to campaigns organized off-wiki, but I think on the whole this will improve the collaborative editing environment. Rhoark (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
Statement by MarkBernstein
Statement by Additional parties: @Ryulong: @Tarc: @The Devil's Advocate: @Tutelary: @ArmyLine: @DungeonSiegeAddict510: @Xander756: @TitaniumDragon: @Loganmac: @Willhesucceed:
Statement by TKOP
- Support Amendment - A wise narrowing of the overly broad existing restrictions. Just narrow it to GamerGate, and if trouble brews again, widen a bit further. That some have been flirting the restrictions, and with the general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go is telling.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 05:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom
- support the most sensible thing that has happened in the gamergate space in months. And I think what @Bishonen: had asked for the last time we were here and what @Risker: had suggested back at the proposed decision page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by coldacid
@Thryduulf: My feeling on this is that it'll do nothing but promote further boundary testing. The rational part of me doesn't quite agree, but I'd certainly argue against converting the existing bans to the type II proposed above if it is added to the remedies. I'd say to Two kinds of pork's comment that general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go
is not a fault with the topic ban's scope, but rather with admins who are putting the optics of the situation ahead of doing the right thing for Wikipedia.
I'm not entirely opposed to adding the additional topic ban scope, I'm just not sure if it'll actually result in the environment that Rhoark and TheRedPenOfDoom hope for. And I fear that reducing existing tbans to the lighter scope will only encourage those currently under the existing scope to cause further problems in the topic space. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 12:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Squiggleslash: Lena Dunham isn't covered under the GG topic ban scope because she's a woman. The article on her is covered because of controversies related to her book, including the rape allegations made by her as well as the part that has been interpreted as admission of rape of her own sister. Please don't go on with that canard that she and all other women with articles are in scope because of their gender. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Hipocrite: If Rhoark is such an
obvious sockpuppet
then why don't you report them to WP:SPI? That's what it's there for. Otherwise you're simply casting aspersions. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by squiggleslash
Makes sense to me, especially as admins seem to be stretching what constitutes a controversy or gender related (Lena Dunham is a woman, therefore gender related; some universities have controversies related to their sexual assault policies/some women have falsely accused men of rape on campus therefore Campus Rape is controversial despite nobody mainstream actually being in favor of it)
I would replace the existing topic ban with this, not add it as an option, and see about creating a more broader topic ban with better language. But given that suggestion will be ignored, I agree with adding it as an option as proposed by the initiator of this proposal. --Squiggleslash (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Coldacid - You're explaining the justification for Lena Dunham being a "controversy" which wasn't in dispute.
Statement by Hipocrite
Why is Rhoark, an obvious sockpuppet participating in administrative spaces unblocked? Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- An editor who joins in late 2014 doesn't know about WP:REICHSTAG. SPI takes too much time for me to deal with right now. If that's a problem for you, feel free to remove this. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
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 case request or provide additional information.
Gamergate: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Gamergate: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I've read the statements so far and I'm so far undecided on the request's merits, so I'd like see more opinions. Particularly I really don't want to be sending a message that encourages boundary testing, so any thoughts on that would be particularly welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Hipocrite: If you have evidence that a user is a sockpuppet editing in violation of the relevant policy, then present that evidence at the appropriate venue (e.g. WP:SPI or WP:AN/I). If that evidence shows that they are a sockpuppet their contributions will be dealt with accordingly, if the evidence does not show that they are an editor who has been blocked or banned from participating here then their contributions will remain. Casting aspersions without evidence, as you have done above, is not permitted so either back up your accusation with evidence or remove it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, avoiding boundary testing was the main concern, but it does not seem to have altogether avoided it. Probably for most subjects, not just this one, any subject-based restriction will always do that if people involved are greatly devoted to the general topic area and not willing to switch interests altogether, or if the people involved are likely to do boundary-testing because they think they have been treated unjustly and see this as the most effective way of challenging the decision, or if they are people who would find the process intrinsically attractive. The insistence above that some topics are not related would seem to indicate the broad bans are needed, (not, for example, that anyone is in favor of Campus Rate, but there are extremely strong disagreements both about the way of dealing with the problem and about individual cases). However, they do place a possibly over-extensive degree of discretion upon individual admins. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)