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 ToBeFree (talk | contribs) at 10:39, 8 September 2023 (→Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: permanent link for an archive update). 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) 14 Dec 2024 04 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Motion (orig. case) 27 August 2023
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
127128129130

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
127128129130

Amendment request: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

Initiated by MarioProtIV at 19:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Lifting of topic ban


Statement by MarioProtIV

Good afternoon. I’m writing this since it has now been at least 6 months since the placing of the topic ban on May 25, 2022. I intended to write this in November 2022 which was 6 months after but I have not been able to get around to writing it and then I just ended up forgetting about it and focused on other things (having actually spent much more time focusing on stuff related to Marvel Cinematic Universe-related things to fill the niche). In that time, I’ve had time to think about how I want to approach this appeal. My time away has allowed me to see what I did wrong and how I will behave should the topic ban be lifted. I am aware I had a history of grudges, sometimes trying to do things my way, and how bad stealth-canvassing is which ended up causing my topic ban. I’ve worked to tune down my language and temper so as to be better-minded and more willing to compromise (an underlying issue which sort of caused this) on stuff within the area of WikiProject Weather should the topic ban be lifted. As such I deeply regret my behavior that led to this, considering the spark that set it off was the color discussion in early 2022 that got nullified because of canvassing (before being restarted this year and implemented).

I believe that should the ArbCom decide to lift my topic-ban they will see better cooperation from me within that area. But I do not think I should just be let off scott-free and I don’t think the ArbCom would think so either. I am aware that they would likely keep tabs on me from time to time so as to monitor progress, and as such I am fully aware that any deviation or violation of WikiProject rules or incidents like last year could easily lead to another topic ban or worse consequences. If the committee wants me to explain more of my stance on this I can gladly provide that info to them below.

As clarification I have included Barkeep49 as part of the involved parties as during the deciding phase for the remedies near the end of the RfC, Bar expressed that he would be open to an appeal in as soon as 6 months from the enactment of the topic ban. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Ah okay thanks for making that clear. I had assumed he could be considered involved since he was the one that suggested to me that he’d be possibly open to an appeal 6 months after but seems that’s not the case. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nova Crystallis: If that’s asked towards me then I don’t mind it being posted in either section. Though, it might be more helpful for those who already stalk/watch the page (those who had contributed to discussion/evidence gathering phase during the initial case (since I think some suggested the TBAN originally). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: My use of reversions back then admittedly sometimes had some attitude, some cases like an image change or whatnot. Mostly because I had an impression that perhaps if I reverted them once or twice they’d either back off or open a discussion (even though I sometimes was hesitant to do so). Nowadays I really only use the revert if there’s an obvious reason (redundant information, random ip edits that are non-constructive, etc.), and I think that the topic ban helped me realize that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nova Crystallis

So at least one ArbCom member wants to hear from the community. Which areas would the committee find acceptable to have this discussion posted in (i.e. WP:WEATHER), or do you prefer those who already watch or stalk this page regularly? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndrewPeterT

This is my first time commenting on WP:Arbitration, so I apologize if I am doing something wrong.

I am also a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones (WPTC), albeit an inactive one. I admit that I have not extensively participated in anything related to the project for nearly two years. However, I remember MarioProtIV from my time as a more active project member back in 2020-2021. We never had any interactions one-on-one. That being said, I recall that MarioProtIV had some sort of leadership role in the community. He was a mentor to a user, and I had no objections to the way he fulfilled that duty.

Simply stated, I support lifting the topic ban in question. I have read MarioProtIV's statement above. It seems to me that the user has done some critical reflection of their behavior, and they are ready to return to a welcoming community at WPTC. I do not object to anything that MarioProtIV wrote. However, I encourage older and newer WPTC users than myself to give their input for a true consensus.

And @Nova Crystallis:, I am going to be bold and post a notification on the WP:WPTC talk page if that is acceptable. Since CaptainEek asked for more community input, it is only fair that members of WPTC, where MarioProtIV was involved with, voice opinions here. That being said, Arbitrators, if you object to me posting such a notification, please let me know.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

As a bystander, I have apprehensions about the whole situation in general, just watching some of the drama that has unfolded around WPTC over the years. However, MarioProtIV seems to me to just be one of many parties in this whole business, and it seems as though there has been some self-reflection and understanding on his part. I align with WTT in terms of being unimpressed with prior conduct, of course. I'd also concur with MPIV's statement of I do not think I should just be let off scott-free and I don’t think the ArbCom would think so either, but while I think some form of probation or editing restriction would be of benefit, given the history of this case I have the inherent worry that it may be exploited by other users in an edit war. I'd sure like to see further community input as well. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this further puts me, an uninvolved community member, in favor of lifting the block. In my opinion, our propensity should always be one towards forbearance and the benefit of the doubt, with a keen eye toward ensuring future growth and collaboration. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jason Rees

As a high-profile member of WPTC/WPWX, I have been wondering over the last few days, if I should comment on Mario's appeal or not. The main problem that I see with his contributions is that he caught up in pursuing his interests in a way that wasnt conducive to the way the encyclopedia works. I would suggest that if Mario does get unblocked that he concentrates on writing articles either outside of the Atlantic Ocean or the present day and not get involved with images for the time being.Jason Rees (talk) 20:37, 6 September 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.

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Clerk notes

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

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

Remedy 9 of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case ("MarioProtIV topic ban") is rescinded.

Enacted ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. I agree with the thinking of the arbs above and so we might as well start voting. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Izno (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. MarioProtIV has made a self-reflective appeal which shows understanding and regret - this is the sort of thing that tends to get my support. I would like to see MarioProtIV in future stating in discussions and votes if they have discussed the issue under consideration in any other venue or with any other users on or off Wiki - such transparency encourages trust and respect. SilkTork (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm sufficiently satisfied with Mario's responses and the community's lack of concern that we agree this. WormTT(talk) 10:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1174425318"