Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Portals	none	(orig. case)	10 October 2020

Arbitrator motions

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!)

1. 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).
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

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 and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Amendment request: Portals

Initiated by BD2412 at 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Portals arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl prohibited
2. 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

• diff of notification BrownHairedGirl
• diff of notification Northamerica1000

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl prohibited

• Lift the prohibition entirely, or at least with respect to discussion of the issue in a new RfA.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#BrownHairedGirl interaction ban

• 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.

Additional comment: I don't understand the point of allowing these prohibitions to be appealed in six months if they are going to remain in place after perfect behavior with respect to these areas for eight months. What, exactly, would BHG need to have done to merit the removal of these prohibitions after six months? BD2412 T 15:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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:

1. It would be unhelpful for everyone if I was banned from answering questions which arise at RFA
2. 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)

• SMcCandlish writes of intensely unpleasant wiki-personal experiences with BHG. The last encounter I recall with SMcCandlish was at ANI in March 2019: I had banned SMcC from my talk in response to their aggression, then found SMcC editing other pages of mine from which they were clearly excluded. SMcCandlish then made a wholly bogus allegation that I had harassed him by email. The unpleasantness was indeed intense, but it was entirely from SMC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Northamerica1000: when RFA nomination was suggested, I considered how to handle any such issues raised in the RFA. My response will be something like this: "I stand by my assessments of portals and of NA1K's role therein, and I also reaffirm my commitment not to discuss them further".
  That is all I want to say, but the restrictions prevent me saying that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • My prev comment was a reply to NA1K, so I included a ping as a matter of courtesy. I am sorry the ping was unwelcome, but the response[1] is excessive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Northamerica1000

In the interest of fairness relative to an RfA, I find myself in general agreement with Beeblebrox's statement below in the "Portals: Arbitrator views and discussion" section, "I would also be ok with a temporary lifting of the restriction, so long as it is made clear that it is only lifted at the RFa page, during BHG's RFA. I do not feel like a compelling case has been made to entirely lift the restriction at this time".

I sure hope an RfA does not become all about me, for some reason or another. If the temporary restrictions are permitted, rather than stating my user name repeatedly throughout an RfA, the phrase "the user" could be used instead. Otherwise, it could come across to casual readers and page skimmers as a regurgitation of more ranting against NA1K (me), preserved in the RfA archives for all time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• The user has now essentially already violated the one-way interaction ban, right here on this page (diff), by pinging me to their comment and speaking directly to me. To be very frank, I do not care to hear anymore about how the user stands by their assessments of portals and their subjective opinions of my supposed "role". The user's vocal assessments and actions ultimately ended up getting them interaction banned, topic banned and desysopped. It was wholly unnecessary to ping me here, because the exact same message could have been conveyed without the ping, and in my opinion, the pinging does not fall within the purview of WP:BANEX. I understand that the user is trying to convey what they would say at an RfA, but in my view, they have done so in a manner here that is in violation of the one-way interaction ban. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

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 Dreamy Jazz

As noted below, I have recused from clerking as I am one of the nominators. I think that, personally, the restrictions should at least be suspended for the RfA. I also think any RfA for a user with active restrictions will have questions from voters about said restrictions. If the RfA candidate was not able to answer such questions, it would be unfair for the candidate as good faith questions left unanswered for a long while are often frowned upon at RfA (I understand that if the restrictions are properly and clearly noted in the RfA, voters should see why the question could not be answered, but it cannot be taken for granted that voters will see such a note). By suspending the restrictions for the RfA, it gives the nominee a chance to answer questions about the issues behind the restrictions. This also gives them a chance for them to show that they understand why those restrictions are in place, and show that they have / will continue to comply with the restrictions once they are back in force. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I'd be interested in the stats for people who have been desysopped with the "May regain via RfA" provision. I can't think of anyone offhand who has passed RfA after that. But that's not an issue of desysopping or ArbCom, it's the ridiculous standards applied at RfA these days. It's closer to "Requests for Sainthood". There are a dozen really solid people I can think of who would have been a shoo-in ten years ago but would probably fail today: you have to have created FAs, engaged in dispute resolution processes, engaged in some (but not too many) debates, voted Delete enough and Keep enough at AfD, all without pissing off agenda editors. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

When an editor is sanctioned, edits productively without violating the sanction, and appeals after the minimum appeal time expires, the sanction is usually lifted because it's no longer needed and lifting it is better for everyone. This case seems to fit that mold. BHG has "done her time" as it were, there's no reason to extend it. The "portal wars" are over. Given her commitments above it's unlikely that the restrictions are actually needed to prevent any problems going forward. We're not going to learn anything relevant in the future that we haven't already learned after eight months. Why take up ArbCom's and other editors' time with another appeal down the road instead of lifting the restrictions now? Lev!vich 03:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Symmachus Auxiliarus

If BHG is to participate in an RfA, these sanctions would necessarily have to be lifted, as this is surely an issue that someone is going to raise. Since she has preemptively agreed to continue to abide by the spirit and general letter of those sanctions outside the scope of the nominating process, and isn’t going to directly interact with NA, the committee should absolutely accept the amendment as proposed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung

"May regain via RfA" is pretty much a death sentence for regaining the tools which an otherwise competent and respected long-time user who knows how to put them to frequent, good, and indispensable use - and the ArbCom is fully aware of its consequences. In face of the character assassination that is unavoidably imparted by a desysoping of this kind for which no appeal is permitted, in order to avoid compromising an intended new run for adminshipship, the only solution is to completely vacate any existing restrictions.

I strongly recommend all commenting here to read both BGH's statement following her desysoping and her Shermanesque comment to Xaosflux and to grant BrownHairedGirl even more respect for having the courage to nevertheless remain active despite her statement. That's what I call 'true dedication' to a worthy cause despite the inadequacies and iniquities of its Arbitration Committee. This statement by Swarm puts it best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Guy: I totally agree that the modern expectations at RfA are far too high and the new breed of voters caused by the reforms, many of whom are very inexperienced and only vote 'as per', can cause an unexpected sway in the result. OTOH, most serious candidatures do appear to pass with a healthy majority. That said, unfortunately, some candidates, and admins - including me - have been unable to turn the other cheek in the long term, to some nasty individuals who harass and gaslight us, and avoid pissing them off. You can see where it got us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Worm That Turned: I'm not sure: 'the desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions' - we don't know what discussions take place off-stage. Naturally some desyopings and/or sanctions are without question absolutely the only possible outcome. Willing to nominate BrownHairedGirl is indeed a truly equitable gesture. However, it does seem to clash somewhat with your not wanting to permanently lift the restrictions entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17

Setting aside the merits of this particular case, it does occur to me that having an un-recused arbitrator telling a party that they would nominate them for adminship isn't ... ideal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

Remedy 1, “prohibited ... engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia” should be wound back. There’s no good reason why she shouldn’t be able to comment on her past involvement with ongoing things such as portal categorisation. I would advise BHG to not mass nominate portals for deletion.

Remedy 2 I would not touch. At RfA, BHG may very well be tempted by questioners to engage on the topic of past behaviours involving herself and User:Northamerica1000. However, every sensible question should be well answered by a statement that does not include “commenting about Northamerica1000”. BHG’s RfA2 should be about BHG, not about another editor. BHG should not comment on Northamerica1000.

As I guessed, my thoughts are in line with Northamerica1000's statement. I fear BHG may be challenged on old statements associated with NA1K, and there may be temptation to summarise her then perceptions, re-litigating the past, and BHG RfA2 could then contain a pseudo-trial of NA1K. I recommend a hard bright line: "BHG may not comment about Northamerica1000", no matter what other editors in the RfA ask or comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Having watched BHG and NA1K over the extended period of difficulty, it is obvious to me, without surprise, that sensitivities on both side are still raw. Continuation of the IBAN is for the good of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Regarding Kudpung's statement (about Worm That Turned's initial response as an Arb): "Willing to nominate BrownHairedGirl is indeed a truly equitable gesture. However, it does seem to clash somewhat with your not wanting to permanently lift the restrictions entirely." WTT basically offering to be a BHG nominator for AfD (but simply getting beaten to it) is also an obvious reason to recuse. The optics are terrible, even if WTT's rede so far on the request is skeptical beyond the "may answer at RfA" point.

As for the heart of the matter, I agree that being able to answer questions at RfA about this should be permitted, on the same basis that someone under a T-ban is allowed to discuss it, as a T-ban and series of issues that led up to it, in an administrative or community proceeding (like this ARCA) that pertains to their conduct. It's the same sort of "the community examining one's behavior and judgment" meta-discussion.

I also tend to agree that the portal-war stuff is old news, and a continuing topic-ban about it doesn't serve a preventative purpose in this case. However, the interaction-ban stuff might not be no longer needed, and we have yet to hear from the other party. I've had some intensely unpleasant wiki-personal experiences with BHG of my own, so I'm skeptical that everything is just kosher between those two editors now, even though I also find most of BHG's work and actions constructive and of value to the project. (This kind of "intelligence and good faith != suitable temperament" distinction is why we have RfA to begin with, and is also a major part of WP:CIR.)

There's not a close connection between T-bans and disruptive behavior that is topical, on the one hand, and I-bans and unreasonably hostile inter-personal behavior, on the other. They're entirely severable, both as remedies and as behavior patterns that lead to remedies. Next, "it'll be hard to pass RfA again" isn't a rationale to remove any ban, anyway. Bans should be lifted when they no longer serve their project-protecting purpose. Not for other "reasons". (But they definitely should be lifted under that condition.)

PS: I can think of at least two desysopped admins who regained the bit, so I don't buy this "the 'May regain adminship via RfA' clause is an admin death sentence" nonsense. Trust once lost is hard to regain, in every aspect of life, but usually not impossible.

PPS: I also do not buy the argument that appeals filed by third-parties are invalid. They're uncommon, but I myself benefited from one, years ago, so I know for absolute fact that they're permissible.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, I'll take my response to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Lets be clear about this, this request is entirely about making the re-RFA process for BHG easier and avoiding the consequences of their restrictions. BHG's ownership issues, editing behaviours as well as their conduct towards others, and the resulting lack of any admin willing to do anything about their fellow admin's behaviour and blatant refusal to abide by community-mandated policies are what led to the desysopping and restrictions with NA1000 in the first place. Either consider lifting the various restrictions on their merit, or do not. But unless BHG has had a radical change of personality in the intervening time period (rather than the situation being that the restrictions are doing their job), lifting them would be a mistake. Leaving the topic ban in place so they cant answer questions (if you are not going to lift it completely) is exactly what you should do. As anyone unfamiliar who shows up at the RFA will then have an accurate grasp of the circumstances. Claiming its 'unfair' they cannot answer questions about their restrictions is misleading. That is the result of BHG's behaviour, no one else's. It is not unfair to have to deal with a situation you created. What is 'unfair' is that a former admin should get preferential treatment. They recieved preferential treatment before the arbcom case, and now they are getting it after. It is extremely telling that WTT below says "The desysop was a close thing in Arbcom decisions" - anyone who has read the actual voting and the comments made by the arbiters there would have to be a blithering idiot to believe that gross mis-charactization of the comments there. That was not 'a close thing'. Arbcom's duty is towards the community as a whole, and this sort of blatant favoritism is a slap in the face to that end. The partisanship is not even superficially obscured here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

I'm ambivalent as to whether the restrictions should be suspended for the duration of the RfA. At first glance, it seems reasonable for BHG to be able to answer questions about the issue. On the other hand, this does very much seem like special treatment and it is not ArbCom's responsibility to make this process easier for BHG. I might be more inclined have some sympathy for BHG were it not for my familiarity with the circumstances that led to her desysop, but I'll save those thoughts for when the RfA opens. Moreover, I am deeply troubled by WTT's unwillingness to recuse even after they have openly indicated their desire to serve as a nominator in BHG's re-RfA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:47, 11 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).

• Recuse I am one of the said nominators in her second RfA. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

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. Worm^TT(talk) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: I understand the concern for recusal in isolation, however, when you look at the larger situation, you will see that I have not interacted with BHG outside of Arbcom cases, I regularly nominate individuals after reviewing their contributions and go on to never interact with them (you can look on my user page for examples), my nomination will primarily be addressing the Arbcom decision and my thoughts on that. Simply, this comes down to two factors, firstly - I accept the decision of the committee, but did not agree with it, and so feel that se deserves a fair shake at community review, and secondly, I feel that RfA is an unpleasant prospect for anyone, let alone someone who has had their admin bits removed, and they deserve a fair shake at community review - again check out my user page to see that this view is something I have been consistent with for nearly a decade. Worm^TT(talk) 09:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would certainly grant the requested amendment at least to the extent that the restrictions should not apply in the forthcoming RfA. With regard to a broader lifting of the restrictions, I will allow some time for any additional statements before opining. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm fine with lifting the restrictions for the purpose of the upcoming RfA. It would not be fair to BHG, nor to the community, if these subjects could not be openly discussed. I would not support repealing the restrictions outright at this time. – bradv🍁 03:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I would also be ok with a temporary lifting of the restriction, so long as it is made clear that it is only lifted at the RFa page, during BHG's RFA. I do not feel like a compelling case has been made to entirely lift the restriction at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I am open to temporarily lifting the restriction on discussing portals for the period of the RfA, though I am not sure I see the value in permanently lifting it given that BHG has no intention of returning to that space. I would also support a loosening of the IBAN, again only for the period of the RfA and only at RfA-related pages, but would prefer to see some kind of wording that makes it clear that while BHG may mention NA1000 if it's relevant to RfA-related discussion, she is still expected not to interact with or comment about them elsewhere on the project.
  If BHG wants the restrictions lifted permanently, I'm open to hearing the argument, but the current request does not make it seem like she's interested in returning to that kind of editing, nor do the restrictions appear to be disrupting her current day-to-day editing in any major way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I support lifting the restrictions, with the understanding that they can be reimposed if there should be unconstructive editing in that area or conflict with the individual.. There were several similar cases this year, and , altho I voted for desysop, I think I might have ben unduly influenced by the need to set a precedent that we would indeed take action. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

---