WP:ARCA

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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: Horn of Africa	none	(orig. case)	5 December 2023
Amendment request: GiantSnowman	none	(orig. case)	17 December 2023

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!)

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.

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:

Shortcuts:

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: Horn of Africa

Initiated by TomStar81 at 18:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Horn of Africa arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

"This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee."

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

TomStar81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

"This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee."

I am seeking clarification of this case as it relates to other cases concerning the middle east to determine how this should be interpreted as effecting northern regions within the framework of the existing Arbitration cases that have been ruled on to date.

Statement by TomStar81

When this case was initially heard there was some semblance of peace in the greater Horn of Africa region. Accordingly then, the case itself was understood by both me and others writing with regards to it as being the nations explicitly mentioned above, which lie to the west, south, and southeast as the greater Horn of Africa region. Now, however, we are beginning to get articles on military action such as those described at Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. These actions, and the base for them, lie to the North of the Horn of Africa - specifically the Red Sea and Yemen (at the moment), although the Gulf of Aden and or Saudi Arabia could eventually be drawn into this as well. Given that the ruling for the Horn of Africa arbitration case never explicitly took up the matter of the northern region of the Horn of Africa, I am seeking clarification from the committee as to whether or not the authorized discretionary sanctions may be reasonably construed as including the two major bodies of water (Red Sea and Gulf of Aden), and whether or not Yemen and Saudi Arabia could be reasonably construed under the current definition of the authorized sanctions as "adjoining areas". I point out that the committee already has ARBIA cases on which it has ruled, but to my knowledge the committee has never officially dictated what extent if any its ruling should be applied to adjoining bodies of water.

@SilkTork: Weighing the two matters as they relate to the region, and taking into consideration the already existing WP:ARBPIA rulings which impact the middle east articles we have I would suggest that the committee approach the request by clarifying that for purposes of the HOA ruling, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are not to be considered part of the greater Horn of Africa ruling as these nations currently come more directly under the WP:ARBPIA ruling. This clarification would define the region as independent and as a result not covered by the Horn of Africa case. For the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, I would suggest clarifying that incidents related to these bodies of water - such as piracy in Somalia - may be designated as under the Horn of Africa case if the belligerents are from or based in one of the countries to which the HoA case applies, or designated as under ARBPIA if the belligerents are from or are based in one of the countries recognized as part of the Middle East (in this case, Yemen and Saudi Arabia). I would also clarify that while incidents on the Red Sea and/or Gulf of Aden may be reasonably construed to be under the jurisdiction of either ARBCOM case, admins should avoid preemptively attaching DS related tags to such articles unless there is a good reason to do so, and that in the event that both cases could be reasonably construed as applying to an article admins and editors should be encouraged to develop a consensus for which case a given page's CT topic designation should come under if a CT designation is judged to be needed. In the case of Somali piracy, for example, if the pirates are HoA and the Saudi Government secures there release, I'd defer to HoA since that would be the belligerent nation, but if a ship was attacked by Somali pirates and IDF forces fought them off, I'd me more incline to to lean toward ARBPIA for CT degination if it were judged needed. In the case of the example article (Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war), that seems more geared toward ARBPIA since the belligerents are based in Yemen, while the Maersk Alabama hijacking would be more geared toward HoA since that was entirely a result of action by Somali pirates. As for any disruption or edit warring in the region, I have seen none - yet - however I am concerned that Hamas's attack on October 7th and the resulting conflict in the region is causing more and more groups to commit either resources to the region for defense of personnel for military action. Since the committee has approximately 5 different cases that may be obtusely construed to apply here in some way, shape, or form (HoA, ARBPIA, Iran, India-Afganistan-Pakistan, & Islam) I feel it important to clarify which case for which region here and to provide guidance on how to approach naval actions related to these regions. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: It works, at least for now. At a minimum it at least offer some level of clarity for the issue. I can live with it, although as the situation develops it may need to be looked at again, but we will cross those bridges when and if we get to them. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Horn of Africa: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Horn of Africa: Arbitrator views and discussion

For me, piracy off of Somolia would clearly be covered by this contentious topic scope. So some expansion into waters feels well with-in the scope. Yemen/Saudi Arbaia feels outside of the scope in the abstract but I reserve the right to feel differently in a specific situation where more factors can be considered. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barkeep. Izno (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Barkeep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TomStar81, as you drew the Committee's attention to the disruption in 2020, and through your knowledge and experience of the area and the disruption, pretty much defined the scope, I think I'd like to be advised by you as to where you feel the scope should currently lie. As you seeing disruption or inappropriate editing in some of the northern regions? Could you point us to some of the concerns you have? SilkTork (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response User:TomStar81, and sorry that this clarification request has gone a little cold. I think all Arbs have been focused on the recently closed case. It appears to me, for simplicity's sake, that Barkkeep's response is the one you were looking for, and there's been agreement by other other Arbs, and I'll put my mark against that as well. Would that satisfy your request, or do you feel that something further needs to be done? SilkTork (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: GiantSnowman

Initiated by GiantSnowman at 09:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: GiantSnowman arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman#MassRollback.js

The restrictions related to the use of rollback (and associated scripts/tools) is lifted.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman#GiantSnowman use of rollback

The restrictions related to the use of rollback (and associated scripts/tools) is lifted.

Statement by GiantSnowman

At my ArbCom case I was rightly admonished for incorrectly using rollback tools, inadvertently reverting valid edits when attempting to rollback vandalism. I have spent the past nearly 5 years manually checking and reverting vandalism instead, which is an onerous task and is now impacting on my ability to deal with socks (for example I have recently been collaborating with @Malcolmxl5: in dealing with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM). I would therefore request that the restrictions related to rollback are lifted. I will only use rollback for clear vandalism/socks and I will endeavour to explain the reason for rollback in my edit summary (I say 'endeavour' is because, if I recall, that is only possible when using the mass rollback tool; if rollbacking individual edits a default edit summary is displayed instead).

Eventually I would like all restrictions formally lifted, although I intend to continue to abide by them indefinitely, and so welcome any general feedback on the same.

[in response to SilkTork] For that particular editor (long-time block evader, subject to multiple range blocks), I would rollback all edits for all new IPs per WP:DENY. Giant Snowman 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[in response to SamX] So you admit adding unsourced content to a BLP? And then I sent you a non-templated message explaining why your behaviour was not acceptable? And your response was "Fair enough [...] Upon further reflection, I realize that my actions violated the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP"? I then found a source for the content myself and added it to the article? So what's the issue now? What communication issues were there? Giant Snowman 18:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[in response to SamX] You're raising concerns, 9 months later, that I didn't respond to a message on your talk page in which you had adequately dealt with the issues raised by my initial message? Giant Snowman 19:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[in response to Barkeep49] Difficult one - see end of paragraph. Edits I might have rollbacked include e.g. this and this as clear vandalism, although I would probably have manually reverted even those. Edits I would not have rollbacked, despite also being clear vandalism, include this and this (as the 'height vandalism' is not always as obvious to third party editors). To be honest, having spent 5 years manually reverting vandalism, I would probably still do so, only using rollback for occasions where that is not practical. Giant Snowman 19:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SamX

I'd like to draw the committee's attention to this interaction I had with GiantSnowman in March this year. I came across this diff during recent changes patrol. I was able to verify the veracity of the information with a quick Google search and I saw a mention of the loan later in the article so I didn't bother adding a reference, instead making a quick copyedit. GiantSnowman then dropped a boilerplate warning on my talk page. It wasn't a templated warning, but it was generic and akin to {{uw-biog1}}, and GS added an identical warning to the talk page of the IP that made the original edit. When I asked for clarification, his reply was curt and dismissive. In hindsight I probably should have checked the sources more thoroughly, but GiantSnowman's comments on my talk page weren't especially helpful and left a bad taste in my mouth. I know this is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and doesn't directly relate to rollback, but I think it indicates that the communication issues that led to his editing restrictions have not been entirely resolved. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Thanks, I meant to link to this edit. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right! I actually just made that mistake again. I've just fixed it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[reply to GiantSnomwan] As I've said, I didn't add the information about the loan to the BLP; I just made some minor copyedits. Yes, I should have checked the sources cited in the article to make sure that they supported the loan itself, not just rumors of the loan. Your initial message on my talk page was generic and didn't make this distinction, and you didn't reply to any of my subsequent good-faith inquiries except to state what was already obvious. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My own experience on GS aside, I agree with EW that the current restrictions are onerous and unnecessary. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

The GiantSnowman restrictions were an interesting experiment, but I think it's past time to admit that they're causing much more trouble than they're worth. Interpreted literally, GS can't block anyone except a vandal without providing "three escalating messages and template warnings" including "an appropriate self-composed message". Does he need to provide three warnings to sockpuppets? AE says yes. Does he need to provide three warnings for username violations? AN says yes. In practice the most stringent restrictions on blocking have been largely ignored, and the community hasn't really cared because of how absurd the results would be if we followed them to the letter. If GiantSnowman still retains the Committee's trust to be an administrator, at some point you also have to trust that he'll use basic tools like the block button and the rollback button appropriately. Just rescind all the restrictions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GiantSnowman: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

GiantSnowman: Arbitrator views and discussion

Hi GiantSnowman. Could you explain how you would use rollback on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM. Is the intention to roll back all the edits done under those IP addresses, or just edits that are or may be problematic? SilkTork (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ, if I recall, a desysop was on the cards until the restrictions remedy was offered. And given, as you helpfully point out, that GS broke one of the restrictions last year, which was discovered when GS was taken to AN for what was felt to be an inappropriate block, I'm not so certain regarding the "If GiantSnowman still retains the Committee's trust..." I would rather GS remained an admin to do positive work on the project. But to allow GS to retain the tools, I think I'd prefer to keep the restrictions in place for the time being. I think it is possible that if GS made a mistake with mass rollback, and a complaint was brought to ArbCom, it might be difficult for the Committee to allow GS to retain the admin toolkit. SilkTork (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GS's response to ST makes me uneasy after reviewing the case. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to lifting at least some of the restrictions, particularly "He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction." KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GS: can you give a few examples of some rollbacks you'd have done in a non-mass setting? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]