Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 14:26, 17 June 2018 (→Macedonia 2: Motion: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Macedonia 2 Motion (orig. case) 12 June 2018
Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions none (orig. case) 16 June 2018
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  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
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and 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.
  • 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:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Clarification request: Macedonia 2

Initiated by NeilN at 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Macedonia 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by NeilN

Can I get a quick clarification from Arbcom on how they want admins to handle WP:MOSMAC (which has the the force of an Arbcom decision behind it) in light of this. I'm already seeing name changes on some articles contravening "Republic of Macedonia", the full self-identifying official name, will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names. Enforce MOSMAC as usual with reverts until and if the name change becomes official and then change the guideline? I ask because uninvolved admins usually stay clear of naming disputes and "when to change the name" discussions but in this case it's a name mandated by an Arbcom case. --NeilN talk to me 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added an explicit edit and talk page notice: "Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country until consensus has determined that the name has officially changed." I have not logged this as I consider it a straightforward interpretation of MOSMAC. --NeilN talk to me 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeltaQuad: Regarding, "new, equal in scope, consensus emerges" - looking at history, the current consensus was arrived at via a complex three stage process which involved three admins acting as referees. Are you suggesting that the community has to undertake a similar process if an official name change goes through? --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Premeditated Chaos: Might want to define "finalized" or editors will argue over that. --NeilN talk to me 00:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Illegitimate Barrister

AFAIK, the change is not yet official because the constitution has to be amended. Just keep the name as it is now until the change to the constitution is made official. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf

Like others here, I'd strongly recommend to not change anything for the time being, at least for as long as the change hasn't become official. Once it has, we should probably first have a systematic new naming disucssion/RfC, as there will be quite a few non-trivial issues to decide. Sure, renaming the main article will be a no-brainer, but what about the dozens of other article titles that contain the name? Will all references to the country in running text have to be changed? What about adjectival forms like "the Macedonian government"? Of course, the Greek side is quite insistent that the new name should be used erga omnes, by and towards everybody, and that this is part of the deal, but will the common usage of the English speech community follow this, or will plain "Macedonia" remain in common informal use among third parties? If it does, to what extent should Wikipedia's usage reflect the official position? There'll be some consensus building to do and it will take some time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by StanProg

We should enforce MOSMAC until the renaming becomes official, which is expected to happen at the end of 2018. When it becomes official we should use the name "Republic of North Macedonia" instead of currently used "Republic of Macedonia". Regarding the adjectival forms "the Macedonian government" or "the North Macedonian government" - this have to be discussed. In the press-conference the Prime Minister Zoran Zaev used the term "Ministry of Health of the Republic of North Macedonia" and "Macedonian healthcare" as an examples. The second thing we should discuss on after it becomes official is the short term "Macedonia" which we currently in use for the republic and it's replacement by "North Macedonia". --StanProg (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

must end one month after it is opened should probably be must end no earlier than one month after it is opened--no reason to be so precise. You might also reasonable specify the number of days a month constitutes (or take our common understanding to be the same date one month later). --Izno (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

There's going to be a referendum later this year, on whether or not to accept the proposed name change. We shouldn't be changing the name now, per WP:CRYSTAL. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

The proposed motion makes sense. Perhaps it should be amended to clarify that the RfC should not be launched until the naming dispute is considered fully resolved by the authorities of both countries involved. Recent media reports indicate that the Macedonian president intends to veto the new name "Northern Macedonia", so this might still take a while. Sandstein 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo

Of course, Wikipedia should reflect an accurate, current name. I see that the below motion is currently gaining support, and I do believe it should pass. Since the current policy has the force of ArbCom behind it, it makes sense to have an ArbCom clarification. Regarding a future RfC, others have pointed out that the change is not official yet. If we're going to have a month-long RfC, we should do it as soon as practicable, rather than waiting for the change of name to be signed, sealed and delivered. Of course, the RfC shouldn't go into effect until that is the case. However, if we waited, there will be a month where we are inundated by people trying to change the name. There will be many page protections, plenty of edit warring blocks and a smattering of inconsistencies. If we run the RfC now, we can avoid all that drama. Furthermore, if, as mentioned by several others, this proposal is stopped, then we will have plenty of time to discuss any alternative proposal and no harm is done.

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.

Macedonia 2: Clerk notes

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

Macedonia 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Although agreements have been reached by both governments, it appears that there are still vehement oppositions within both states, so there are still quite a few uncertainties. Therefore I think it would not be wise to change our approach until the name change has been not only finalised but enacted. I would endorse NeilN's suggestion of "Enforce MOSMAC as usual with reverts until and if the name change becomes official and then change the guideline". Alex Shih (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At risk of sounding like were making a content decision, properly obtained consensus should exist until a new, equal in scope, consensus emerges. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good topic for an RfC. At what point should Wikipedia recognise the change to the name? At any rate, while I have an opinion, it's as an editor, not an Arb - this is a little too close to a content decision for my liking WormTT(talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia 2: Motion

The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

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) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. This clarifies that the arbitration case does not stand in the way of a further RfC, without tangling us up in deciding a content decision. The specifics mirror those of the original case. ~ Rob13Talk 23:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Edited to add: I agree that three admins isn't necessary, three experienced editors in good standing should suffice, admins or not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not sure that the editors who close the RfC must be admins, but I won't oppose over that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support current version, this should be a community decision. Like Callanecc, I don't think we need 3 admins to close, but not worth opposing over. WormTT(talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, but also dissent on the three administrators part. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don’t think three admins will be necessary, but like WTT, not worth opposing over. Katietalk 11:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Also supporting; the three administrators part is probably meant to be consistent with the original case, but 2009 was a long time ago, I think normal editors in good standing these days should be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. So long as there are three, it shouldn't matter if they are Admins or not, so long as they are uninvolved. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree that an RfC would be appropriate before the name is changed. I might not be quite so prescriptive about the rules for the RfC, but they don't seem to be controversial, given that no one seems to have objected to the details we have provided, other than ones we have already tweaked. Also, to add something that I hope is obvious, nothing in the old ArbCom decisions or in the naming convention precludes objective discussion of the proposed resolution of the naming dispute itself, including reference to the proposed new name and forms of reference, so long as the current status of the proposals is accurately given. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As it currently stands. Like the panel of three, don't think they need to be admins. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Per my comment to Doug, I'll abstain here as long as we are stating when the RfC can be handled. I'll support any motion that says an RfC is acceptable based upon the recent developments. WormTT(talk) 13:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Discussion by arbitrators
Community comments

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions

Initiated by El cid, el campeador at 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. You must not start an infobox discussion here


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • You must not start an infobox discussion here
  • Delete


Statement by El cid, el campeador

Currently, there is a discretionary sanctions notice on the Stanley Kubrick talk page, alerting users not to add an infobox. That, I understand. But, there is also a notice to not discuss infoboxes on the talk page. To me, this goes against everything that WP is built upon, namely robust discussion and consensus-building. The intended purpose of talk pages is to discuss ways to improve the articles. Issuing a gag order on discussion doesn't seem right. Therefore, I propose removing that part of the DS notice.

Statement by Bishonen

The reason I added the sanction at all was mainly the disruption on the talkpage, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again, draining the energy of everybody who felt constrained to weigh in yet again in order to have their opinion counted. See my full rationale, and support from uninvolved admins, including two arbitrators, in this AE discussion. Bishonen | talk 06:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric

Just no.WP seems to have a quite-proficient cottage-industry (esp. in this area) wherein there's a tendency to throw the same shit at the same wall, until some of it sticks.Any measure to counteract such activities ought be appreciated.And, time has shown that the infobox discussion(s) over the particular page are nothing but acrimonious and only lead to a hostile atmosphere, with zero development to the content.

Statement by Johnuniq

An edit war is easily handled with protection or blocks. It is the talk talk talk that corrodes the community. The wiki way would be to brawl for another three months, but discretionary sanctions are provided to prevent such unproductive fights. No RfC has found that infoboxes are required so there is no reason to worry that people won't be able to argue until 10 September 2018 when the discretionary sanctions expire. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

We can wait until September 2018. In the meantime, our planet will continue to rotate. GoodDay (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

It's pretty common for a community consensus to come up with a moratorium on re-re-re-discussing that which was just discussed to death again at the same page. It appears to be within WP:AC/DS parameters for an admin to apply a similar anti-disruption remedy as a discretionary sanction, especially since it's not targeted at anyone in particular, but just puts up a temporary forcefield around two combatant sides so the rest of the peeps are not caught in the continual crossfire and can get on with the real work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:13, 17 June 2018 (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.

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Considering the full support at Arbitration Enforcement and the 8-2 consensus on the talkpage... I'm not seeing any good reason to modify this. I also don't see an appeal made to AE, not that one is required. If a view can be presenting that this is actually harmful to Wikipedia's goals, then we can look at it. If we want to talk about the five pillars and how the fourth is to discuss issues, the community has fought that out already way too often and is why the Arbitration case exists to begin with. If we move on to the fifth pillar, it notes Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. So I see this as a very valid interpretation of the pillars and principles of Wikipedia. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus building isn't happening, so the discussions are endless. I have no problem with this discretionary sanction in this instance, it's clearly defined and does not stop any other discussion on the talk page. It can be appealed in the future, but absolutely, this is the right solution for this article now and I thank the admins (especially Bishonen) for using discretionary sanctions well. WormTT(talk) 06:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely agree with the above. The talk page was being inundated with constant RfCs and discussions re-hashing the infobox issue for that article, wasting our most precious resources: the time and patience of editors. In the absence of a strong indication that the disruption won't flare right up again, I can't see a reason to remove this restriction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=846258852"