Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: Brahma Kumaris | Motion | (orig. case) | 6 July 2020 |
| Amendment request: Anti-harassment RfC | none | none | 14 July 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:
Clarification request: Brahma Kumaris
Initiated by BlackcurrantTea at 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- BlackcurrantTea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by BlackcurrantTea
One of the remedies in this case was that Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, since renamed Brahma Kumaris, was placed on article probation. A notice was added to the talk page.
Article probation is now obsolete. I've recently replaced notices on other talk pages with {{Ds/talk notice}}. These notices require a decision code (topic= ) for the associated case, and there isn't one listed for Brahma Kumaris in the template documentation. I haven't found any indication that the sanctions have been lifted; however, the case is from 2007 and my search may have missed it.
Have the sanctions been lifted, or do they remain in effect? If they remain in effect, the notice should be replaced by a new discretionary sanctions template; if the sanctions have been lifted, the article probation notice should be removed.
I don't think the article needs ArbCom-level sanctions. I looked at edits from the last three years, and the community has been able to handle the disruptive editing that's occurred. Ravensfire has regularly reverted non-neutral and unsourced changes to the article, and I've left a note on their talk page mentioning this request for clarification should they wish to express their opinion.
Although the pace of editing has increased slightly since the beginning of the year, in the last five years it's been less than a tenth of what it was in 2007 at the time of the case. The article has only had protection added once during that time, for two weeks in 2015. Were Brahma Kumaris brought up at a noticeboard right now as needing some form of attention, it's unlikely that it would get anything more than a few people adding it to their watchlists, if that.
I found Brahma Kumaris and other articles which still had the probation template by using Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Article probation. It looks like there are a few other pages left with different notices, e.g. Talk:Naked short selling#Article probation, and more with a section like Talk:The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin#Article probation that refer to a now-archived subpage. I've only taken a quick look at those.
Statement by Ravensfire
I've had the article on my watchlist for a bit but really only revert the obvious POV edit from one side or the other. It's pretty rare at this point to see edits to the article. I think the restrictions did their job and it's time to retire them. If something starts up again, I think there are adequate resources available to handle most problems. Ravensfire (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by L235
My thanks to BlackcurrantTea for bringing this up and for looking through the list of active restrictions. If anything else comes up, this would be a good time to get the housekeeping out of the way. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:33, 12 July 2020 (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.
Brahma Kumaris: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Brahma Kumaris: Arbitrator views and discussion
- This arbitration case was decided more than 13 years ago and none of the current arbitrators will be familiar with it. It is so long ago that our occasional reviews of old discretionary sanctions will have missed it, because it predated the change in terminology. At this point, are there current problems with editing of the article that warrant having ArbCom-level sanctions in place? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Given how long article probation has been obsolete, and that this is only coming up now, my feeling is that discretionary sanctions are probably not needed here. However I'm open to input from those active in the topic area if they feel differently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- A quick review of the article's editing history does not reveal any problems that would require ArbCom-level sanctions and I cannot find any (recent) entries for this case in either the log or AE (the last time enforcement was requested based on this case was in 2010 (incidentally by now-arb Beeblebrox)). As such, I support formally rescinding the remedies of this case (at least the article probation, although the ban on the 195-IP probably is worthless after 13 years as well). Regards SoWhy 07:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I thought this sounded vaguely familiar but I couldn't remember why. If that was the last time this was even brought up I have to agree, we probably don't need it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be reasonable to remove the arb sanction. Any subsequent disruption can be dealt with by the community DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Motion: Brahma Kumaris
Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris, "article probation", is hereby terminated.
- For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support
- Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- SoWhy 15:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Katietalk 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maxim(talk) 12:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 13:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- – bradv🍁 13:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
- Copyedited, hopefully non-controversially, to substitute "terminated" (meaning "it's ended as of now") for "rescinded" (which could be read to mean "it was never good," although we haven't always used it that way). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Plus "terminated" just sounds cooler. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are there other stragglers like this that were missed in the DS cleanup? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Amendment request: Anti-harassment RfC
Initiated by EllenCT at 15:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Proposed diff
- Topics on which comment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Topics on which comment is requested
- The RfC should request comments on all of the topics of its mandate.
Statement by EllenCT
Dear Arbcom,
As discussed at its talk page I ask the Committee to amend WP:AHRFC such that the requests include all portions of the mandate as given: "focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future."
At present, private complaints are covered but there is no section, for example, where discussing long-term harassment issues and solutions would be appropriate.
Dear Clerks, the section heading levels on that RfC are odd, too.
Thank you all for your kind service. EllenCT (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned and David Fuchs: I'm happy to create a supplemental separate RFC, especially if you think it would be better than amending the one which has been running. When I came upon it it said that you hadn't opened it, but someone else apparently had. EllenCT (talk) 16:56, 17 July 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.
Anti-harassment RfC: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Anti-harassment RfC: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Ellen, I'm one of the Arbs that was actually involved in the Fram case... indeed, I wrote most of the initial decision. The intention of the RfC was to plug the "hole" that plausibly existed about "on-wiki" behaviour that needed to be handled through "off-wiki" mean, due to the points raised in the RfC. There were some side questions that were also raised as part of that and the RfC that has been published has posed those too. It was never meant as a general RfC on harassment on Wikipedia and how to handle that. While a general RfC may well be worthwhile, this should be community led, not Arbcom led and so I'd encourage you to consider raising a separate one about the concerns you'd like covered in the future. WormTT(talk) 09:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Having read your specific query on the talk page I don't see how that's singularly relevant for the terms of the RfC. It's not about grinding personal axes; its framing is rather deliberately not totally open-ended. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)