Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiptoety (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 10 March 2012 (→Motion: motion enacted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2|Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]] none none 9 March 2012
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:ARBAA2|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:ARBAA2]] none none 8 March 2012
Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction Motion none 24 February 2012

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Initiated by — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. at 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • This is a request for general clarification, not addressing (at this time) any specific editors. I am consequently not notifying any individual users, but will post a notice about this request at Talk:Van cat.

Statement by SMcCandlish

I would like clarification that the WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Affected areas update to WP:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as enumerated on the former page under "Pages relating to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)", applies to topics that are not explicitly and obviously "Armenia-related" on their face but which are nonetheless subject to vitriolic ethnic/racial editwarring and soapboxing/battlegrounding in contravention of our neutral point of view policy, because of their tangential connections to tensions and disputes between Armenians and neighboring cultures. In particular, I note that a {{Warning}} template has been applied to Talk:Armenian Genocide with the following text: "Under the discretionary sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, this article has been placed on a one-revert rule. Any editor who makes more than one revert (and this revert must be discussed on the talk page) in a 24-hour period will be blocked. Please edit cooperatively, and seek consensus and compromise rather than edit-war."

I seek explicit clarification whether this applies only to that article, or also to other related articles, should the need arise. I raise this question in particular about the article Van cat, especially (as of the article structure right now) the lead, the infobox, and the section Van cat#Naming controversy, recently merged in from Van cat naming controversy, a highly contentious article used for PoV-pushing of all sorts, pro/anti-Armenian, -Turk, and -Kurd. I would like to apply the same Talk:Armenian Genocide warning to Talk:Van cat only if/when necessary; my interpretation of the the ArbCom cases with regard to Armenia-related topics suggests that would be permissible. A housecat article seems an unlikely place for this sort of ethnic feud, and it's been quiet lately in the wake of two ArbCom cases about Armenia-related edit-wars, which involved blocks that put a damper on some participants for a while, but I have no doubt that the issue will come up again. It's an article about a variety of cat that is claimed as a major cultural symbol by all three ethnicities, so it will be targeted for PoV-pushing in the future, guaranteed. I would like to know whether the "1RR" imposed by ArbCom on "Armenia... and related disputes" can be extended to this article when the tooth-gnashing inevitably begins again. I have no political stake in the question; in this, I'm just a WP:CATS editor trying to reduce racialist "noise" in a cat article that's been repeatedly hijacked for WP:GREATWRONGS purposes. The related article Turkish Van has seen some of this too, but but I think the split-off of Van cat and the subsequent merger of Van cat naming controversy into Van cat will "concentrate the fire" on that article when the "its OUR cat!" issue pops up again. Nonetheless, should the need arise, I include the article Turkish Van and potentially also Turkish Angora, and any results of splits, mergers or PoV-forks of any of these articles, and any cat-related sections in other relevant articles (e.g. Turkey, Armenia, Lake Van, etc.), in this request for clarification. I'm posting this because other cases are clearer. E.g. Template:ARBPIA says "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR", but the equivalent for Armenia disputes does not include such "broadly construed" language. PS: Count this as a "vote" for more consistent enforcement and remedies wording. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

  • Arbcom can of course make their own answer to this question, but I think there is no blanket 1RR restriction on the AA articles currently. (The 1RR at Armenian genocide was just for that article and it was imposed by User:Moreschi in 2008). It is my understanding that article-based restrictions such as 1RR can be imposed by any administrator under the provisions of WP:AC/DS, once it's been decided that the editing of the article falls in the domain of an appropriate Arbcom case. The discretionary sanctions are more quarrel-based than geography-based, so if somebody started an edit war on the nationality of the Van cat (Turkish versus Armenian, for example) that should fall under WP:ARBAA2. Nationalist warring involving Armenia on other cat-related articles should also fall under ARBAA2, but it would be wise for administrators only to impose a 1RR on specific articles where a problem appeared to exist and where an article 1RR was a better solution than individual editor sanctions.
  • As to whether ARBAA2 can be broadly construed: See this edit from October 2011 in which the Committee authorized discretionary sanctions for "Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted..", which ought to cover it.
  • Extension of an existing remedy to a novel area might fall under item 3 of WP:AC/DS, which suggests "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case". I assume they mean a discussion at the community level. This would suggest that an admin should go to WP:AE or some other appropriate noticeboard if they believe that AA restrictions are needed on cat articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Leave this section for others to add additional statements

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:ARBAA2

Initiated by Gatoclass (talk) at 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gatoclass

Although I do not usually adjudicate disputes at WP:AE, I decided to assist on the recently filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article. Since I have had no prior involvement in Azerbaijan-Armenian articles, I assumed I was entitled to participate. However, I have experienced a growing unease about my participation in this case, based on the fact that I have had some involvement (albeit long ago) on East European articles (which I believe are covered by WP:DIGWUREN). While most sources appear to place Azerbaijan and Armenia in Western Asia, some seem to place these countries in Eastern/Southeastern Europe, in which case, ARBAA2 might be considered a subset of WP:DIGWUREN. On the other hand, it appears that DIGWUREN is concerned mostly with disputes between Russians and other East Europeans, while ARBAA2 concerns a national dispute between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. ARBAA2 contains no reference to DIGWUREN that I can see, but nonetheless, I think this issue needs clarification. A quick response would be greatly appreciated since the AE case concerned is still active. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Putting aside the geographical definitions question for a moment, I wonder if the requester might be construing "involvement" more broadly than is necessary. An administrator who is active or who has been involved in editing disputes in a topic-area should avoid AE work in that topic, but that raises the question of defining the topic. In the case of Eastern Europe, I can imagine that some people might be involved in disputes involving that whole part of the world, and hence would stay away from administrator work covering any of Eastern Europe, broadly defined. On the other hand, if I were active in editing Lithuania, I wouldn't feel myself disqualified from helping out in a dispute about Slovakia or Montenegro. Or, for that matter, about Armenia and Azerbaijan. The question is whether the administrator might either actually have, or might reasonably be perceived as having, relevant bias or history that would make it unfair for him or her to help resolve the dispute. In the context of this request it sounds to me like there is probably not a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Brad's comment above. In other words, I wouldn't consider you to be involved. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciate the autocontemplative nature of the request, but I think NYB has nailed it above. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYB has this one nailed. Courcelles 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction

The restriction is worded thusly: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." I've just unblocked a user who was blocked for violating these sanctions. Their argument was that they received a big fat notice on their talk page that contained this wording from the decision, and that they therefore believed they could revert IP users without penalty. I assumed the notice was misrepresenting the decision, but that is in fact exactly what it says. I'm a bit confused by this, it seems to suggest that any and all IP edits on articles covered by this sanction can be treated as vandalism. Am I missing something here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the intention, that any edit by an IP to any of these articles can be reverted on sight and they are not subject to the 1RR restriction, shouldn't we just semi-protect the whole lot of them? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

It seems harmless to make the change in wording recommended by Sphilbrick, but I don't think it is necessary. The {{ARBPIA}} template already reads like this:

"Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors, and edits which are clearly vandalism."

I find it hard to tell the difference between that and Sphilbrick's version:

"Reversions of clear vandalism, or reversions of edits by anonymous IP editors, are not subject to the 1R Restriction."

It goes without saying that IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason and that the WP:EW policy still applies. For background, the exemption that allows reverting IP edits seems to come from a proposal by T. Canens in November 2010, which got included in the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. From there it made its way into the wording of the {{ARBPIA}} template, and then got added as a community supplement to the WP:ARBPIA decision. The sentence in WP:ARBPIA was tweaked by PhilKnight in January 2011 to agree with the language in the {{ARBPIA}} template. 1RR rules which exempt IP edits are not common, and it is logical that they might create some confusion. The special 1RR rules that exempt IP edits still appear to serve a purpose in the most contentious areas. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should go without saying that "IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason" but I think the issue arose because someone read "Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..." and thought it meant, literally, that IP edits could be reverted without penalty, instead of "Certain edits may be reverted without [incurring a 1RR] penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..."
My proposed edit makes explicit, what was implicitly true, but missed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the point made by AGK; the proposed edit is not a change to the restriction, but a wording change to make clear the original intention, which is unchanged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

On a purely cosmetic point, in the motion below saying "reverts of edits made by IP editors that are not clear vandalism" are still covered by edit-warring policy is a tad redundant. Edit-warring policy also provides an explicit exemption for reverting vandalism. Rather, I think after noting reverts of IP editors are not subject to 1RR the subsequent statement need only say that the usual edit-warring policy still applies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

The 1RR exemption for IPs was intended as a discouragement to sockpuppetry. I am concerned that making reverts of IPs "subject to the usual rules on edit warring" will expose established accounts to the fiat of admins who not infrequently decide to hand out bans in contentious topic areas for perceived "edit warring" even when 3RR has not been violated. This is likely to make it difficult for established accounts to discourage sockpuppetry as intended as they will have to be looking over their own shoulder when reverting IPs. I suggest therefore that the phrase "subject to 3RR" be substituted for "subject to the usual rules on edit warring". This should help ensure that established editors retain a useful advantage over IPs without being accused of edit warring when doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, and given Elen's comments below, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be simpler just to make reverts of IPs literally without penalty, ie they can be reverted as often as necessary. It would strongly discourage sockpuppetry but wouldn't completely prevent IPs from adding useful content, as semi-protection would do. Gatoclass (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Moved from WP:ACN as this is the right venue. Courcelles 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, the way the remedy is worded, the 1RR does not apply to reverting IP's, but usual rules on edit warring and 3RR do. Courcelles 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Courcelles, reverting IPs is still subject to 3RR, and for that matter our usual rules on edit warring. I'm ok with the change suggested by Sphilbrick, which could, as HJMitchell suggests, be extended to The Troubles as well. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Sphilbrick's proposed copyedit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret the current wording to have the same meaning as that of Sphilbrick's proposed change. However, I can see why there can be a different interpretation of the current wording, and to resolve the discrepancy I propose we copy-edit the sanction wording as recommended (unless there are objections in the next few days). If there is a pending enforcement request that relates to this sanction, I recommend it be placed on hold, but in any event it must be dismissed: an ex post facto application of the sanction would be unfair. AGK [•] 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was recused on the underlying case so have no vote here, but agree that as a matter of general principle and as part of our goal of standardizing remedies to the extent possible, the remedy here should be copyedited, and/or updated to reflect current practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with Sphilbrick's proposed tweak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

  • Enacted at 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support
  1. Feel free to copyedit, but this has been sitting here too long for a mainly cosmetic change. Courcelles 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (We may require some notifications about the amendment to The Troubles sanction - for example on the talk pages of popular, related articles - if our foresighted change is not to take the editors completely by surprise.) AGK [•] 23:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Works for me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I've historically recused on most parts of the Palestine-Israel case, but this motion pertains equally to The Troubles where I am active, and its really just a copyediting clarification (that has already passed anyway), so I will go ahead and vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support in principle but I wonder whether this could not be more simply, clearly and emphatically expressed as "Unless the reversion is solely to remove clear vandalism, all reversions are subject to the One Revert Restriction". (Sorry to be a Johnny-come-lately on this.) I'll circulate this on the list and see if there's any traction,  Roger Davies talk 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained on-list, that would change the substantive issues of the sanction, which this motion explicitly does not do. That kind of change would require a fresh motion, as it would make reverting IP edits count in the 1RR, which they do not do at present. Courcelles 18:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Thanks for clarifying it though, absent context, we're still left with an ambiguity in the first sentence (which Phil's "made" doesn't really fix). Sorry to suggest a recast but it's probably clearer to separate the vandalism and the IP edits entirely, as two sentences, thus: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." And the "of whatever origin" is probably unnecessary.  Roger Davies talk 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, so copyedited. Anyone, feel free to revert if you disagree. Courcelles 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The only reason this is in there is the fear that five IP editors are actually just one editor. If they were five editors, then there would be no reason to assume that. But whenever you put "IP editor" and "vandal" in the same sentence, the community comes away with the impression that IP editors are all vandals and can be reverted on sight. I would prefer something like the wording below, and will propose it as an alternative if there is any traction

In an area subject to IRR restrictions -

  • Editors are restricted to making one revert only per day - this applies to all accounts and IP addresses of that editor
  • There are no restrictions on the number of times vandalism may be reverted
  • Any IP editor is restricted to IRR in the same way as other editors
  • Where multiple IPs edit the article in a similar manner, they can be treated as if they are all one person and, if they persist in making the same edits or reversions, then other editors may revert them without penalty.

Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain;
Comments
Note to Clerk: Even though the motion as proposed is passing, please don't close this just yet, given the discussion of possible copyedits or alternatives. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=481196011"