Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions
→Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion: my thoughts |
|||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
=== Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion === |
=== Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion === |
||
* The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions, and still I do not believe it raised to the level of one at the time (especially in comparison to some of the other cases we've dealt with). I believe I made a statement soon after the desysop was accepted that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worm_That_Turned&diff=prev&oldid=938488880&diffmode=source I would be willing to nominate BHG] as an admin. Now you have a few nominators, but drop me a line if you feel my nomination would help. {{p}} That said, I do not believe that the other restrictions should be lifted outright. I would accept their suspension during the RfA, as BHG should be able to be open about the subject at that forum, and RfA voters will want to be able to ask their questions on the matter. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
* |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
Revision as of 19:50, 10 October 2020
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Portals | none | (orig. case) | 10 October 2020 |
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:
Amendment request: Portals
Initiated by BD2412 at 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl prohibited
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl interaction ban
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Lift the prohibition entirely, or at least with respect to discussion of the issue in a new RfA.
- Lift the interaction ban entirely, or at least with respect to discussion of the issue in a new RfA.
Statement by BD2412
I write to request the removal or limitation of restrictions currently imposed on User:BrownHairedGirl. Per the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Remedies issues on 29 January 2020, BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from "engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia", and from "interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia", both subject to appeal "in six months". BrownHairedGirl has studiously observed these restrictions for over eight months now, and has continued to contribute excellent work to the encyclopedia since then. Another editor and I are therefore preparing to renominate her for adminship, and it is possible that either of the aforementioned issues will be raised by participants in the discussion. I therefore request that the specified restrictions be lifted, either in their entirety, or at least to the extent needed for the purpose of fully engaging any issues that may arise during the course of the RfA.
Statement by BrownHairedGirl
Thanks to BD2412 for making this request. I have absolutely no desire or intention to get involved in portals again, or to resume interaction with NA1K. However, I would like the restrictions to be lifted because:
- It would be unhelpful for everyone if I was banned from answering questions which arise at RFA
- Most of my editing this year has been on categories, and most of those category pages include links to portals. The ban leaves me in the perverse situation that if anyone asks me a non-contentious question about links which I have created to portals, then I am unable to reply even if the matter if solely technical.
For my own peace-of-mind, I intend to continue to observe the self-denying ordinance which I posted on 24 January, and also to avoid contact with NA1K. However, it would be helpful to at least be able to reply to comments at RFA, and preferably to also at least have the option of making a brief factual reply to NA1K if our paths cross at a discussion venue such as CFD, where I am a regular participant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Northamerica1000
Statement by Reyk
The verdict of the ArbCom case back in January was that BHG is allowed to run at RfA at any time. That implies she should get a clear and unobstructed run at it. Since she's almost certainly going to be asked questions about portals and NA1K, preventing her from answering those questions would hobble the RfA attempt and make a cruel joke of ArbCom's determination that she's allowed to run. I think all bans should be lifted completely- failing that, they should be lifted temporarily for the RfA. Reyk YO! 19:22, 10 October 2020 (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 amendment request or provide additional information.
Portals: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion
- The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions, and still I do not believe it raised to the level of one at the time (especially in comparison to some of the other cases we've dealt with). I believe I made a statement soon after the desysop was accepted that I would be willing to nominate BHG as an admin. Now you have a few nominators, but drop me a line if you feel my nomination would help.
That said, I do not believe that the other restrictions should be lifted outright. I would accept their suspension during the RfA, as BHG should be able to be open about the subject at that forum, and RfA voters will want to be able to ask their questions on the matter. WormTT(talk) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
