Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Non-ARBPIA Western Asia disruption	none	none	6 February 2022

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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:
   • 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).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
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.

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-llists.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:

Clarification request: Non-ARBPIA Western Asia disruption

Initiated by El C at 15:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Non-ARBPIA Near East disruption

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

• El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by El C

I hate this template so much! Erm, as you may or may not know, there has been a resurgence in disruption pertaining to Turkey and Turkic peoples (especially Turkish people) lately, at times with the Armenian genocide as its nexus, other times with a less modern historical focus (Ottoman Empire and earlier), especially vis-à-vis Iranian peoples (esp. Persians).

There are 4 threads related to these topics at WP:ANI right now (permalinks: #Abrvagl, #Arvinahmadi1994, #37.111.218.179, #WP:NOTHERE_by_Mountain_gora), which is on the high end of normal. At a (2nd) glance, these all appear to be disparate individuals and related sub/topics.

Anyway, the WP:KURDS, WP:AA2, and to a lesser extent WP:ARBIRP DSs, provide a lot of overlapping coverage (coverage which isn't the easiest to navigate, but it's aiight), except when they don't. Maybe it's time for some creative stuff? And things? I dunno. Thanks for indulging me! El_C 15:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero, WP:BALKANS redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, so looks like I win this round!

Barkeep49, I think #37.111.218.179 would not be covered ,possibly more. Sorry, writing in haste. El_C 16:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, only lowercase wp:balkans, I knew that. My memeory is so bad and now I'm sad. El_C 16:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero, briefly, to reduce the stupid quotient: the Ottoman-Euro stuff is probably covered, but I have doubts whether the Ottoman-Iranian (and beyond) would be. So, topics such as Turco-Persian wars, Ottoman–Safavid relations and so on. El_C 19:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm questioning the coherence of some of the above, so I'll put it another way. Two likely things would happen to a Western Asian disruptive account that isn't blatant enough for a simple WP:DE-block. Either their disruption will become prolific enough that they'll get a siteban or equivalent at AN/ANI (which is often hard to come by due to lack of familiarity with the subject matter by the average reviewer of these noticeboards). Or, eventually, they'll run afoul of the existing DSs. Sometime, they become productive contributors, lest we forget that does happen, though unfortunately not as often.

Basically, I'm concerned with the attrition faced by our veteran contributors who regularly edit these topics. Honestly, I don't really know what to do. I originally just wanted a better alert system that accounted/connected these to the other non-ARBPIA Western Asian DSs, but I'm not sure that it can be done under the current system without having a blanket Western Asia of all/most eras DS, which doesn't seem too feasible (or desirable).

The point is that, to me, it feels like the bleed in this area has become near constant. So now I put it out there, FWIW. El_C 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Wouldn't Turkey and the Ottoman Empire fall under Eastern Europe and the Balkans? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:15, 6 February 2022 (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.

Non-ARBPIA Near East disruption: Clerk notes

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

Non-ARBPIA Near East disruption: Arbitrator views and discussion

• El C - I will read through those threads you've linked but for this time-starved arb's benefit can you provide a few diffs that show disruption that isn't covered by current DS? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• This is always a difficult area to cover, and I appreciate that we have quite a few different DS regimes for a roughly defined geographic area "West Asia" - but I'm not sure I'm seeing a solution at present. I'd not be happy to combine the regimes, because the are based on different conflicts and if one does resolve, I'd like to be able to consider removing it - similarly I don't like the idea of casting too wide a net and catching issues that the community should be dealing with normally. I will read and think, think and read - but I would certainly appreciate more thoughts from the community. Worm^TT(talk) 13:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)