Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 83: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:09, 27 March 2022

Latest revision as of 07:26, 26 November 2024

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 13:

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

*{{userlinks|Rhoark}} (initiator)

*{{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}}

Line 19:

*{{userlinks|Additional party clown car: <span style="font-size:50%">{{Ping|Ryulong}} {{Ping|Tarc}} {{Ping|The Devil's Advocate}} {{Ping|Tutelary}} {{Ping|ArmyLine}} {{Ping|DungeonSiegeAddict510}} {{Ping|Xander756}} {{Ping|TitaniumDragon}} {{Ping|Loganmac}} {{Ping|Willhesucceed}}</span>}}

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''

<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&diff=prev&oldid=651735026]

Line 160:

=== Statement by [[User:Liz|Liz]] ===

While I think I understand what the committee intended by the phrasing "gender-related dispute" or "gender-related controversy", in practice, it is overly broad and, for instance, could cover the biographies of any man or woman who is deemed controversial. For example, rape is a criminal act, it is not a "controversy" and an article on campus rape shouldn't be covered by an editing restriction that is focused on the GamerGate controversy and its associated subjects. It might be in some people's minds, gender is associated with feminism but gender is a social and cultural construct that is an aspect of any and every individual person, man, woman or child. If the AC meant "feminism" and/or "sexism" than restrict the topic ban to these specific subjects, not any article that touches on aspects of gender. [[User:Liz|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Papyrus" ;font-size="4" :large;color=":#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</fontspan>]] ^{<font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font>} 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

: [[User:Salvio_giuliano|Salvio]], I think I'm pretty familiar with Lena Dunham's bio and it's still not clear to me what part is gender-related controversy and, as such, be subject to GamerGate DS. Are you referring to aspects of her bio that deal with sexuality? Because that is not gender. Gender is ones identity as a man, woman, transgender person or queer and the social, cultural and biological forces that help shape that identity. Gender is not synonymous with sexuality or feminism or women in general. Campus rape is not a gender-related controversy, it's not about identity, it's about sexual violence against men and women. Chelsea Manning case would be covered in this instance because the dispute was about gender identity.

: I think most of the editors here that I agree with think that "gender-related dispute", broadly constructed, is imprecise and ill-defined and there isn't agreement on the scope of what articles this would apply to. This vagueness can only lead to MORE cases coming to AE, not fewer. This request for clarification is an opportunity for arbitrators to narrow the scope to exactly what troublesome topical areas you had in mind. This action would settle a lot of questions, in advance and reduce the frequency that you will see GamerGate cases returning to AE and ARCA for additional decision-making and fewer sanctions against editors because the boundaries would be ''clear, not fuzzy''. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of arbitrators are refusing to reconsider the scope of the DS so I imagine you will continue to receive GamerGate-related questions on a regular basis. [[User:Liz|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Papyrus" ;font-size="4" :large;color=":#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</fontspan>]] ^{<font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font>} 18:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by EChastain ===

Line 316:

=== Statement by [[Liz]] ===

I'm surprised by this proposal after looking at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review]] where there were three rounds of consultation before Discretionary Sanctions wording was altered. Is it appropriate to suggest a rewrite here? [[User:Liz|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Papyrus" ;font-size="4" :large;color=":#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</fontspan>]] ^{<font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font>} 13:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===

Line 818:

#All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.(#6)

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

*{{userlinks|Gerda Arendt}} (initiator)

Line 1,008:

}}

'''Enacted''' - --'''[[User:L235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:L235|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]] / [[User:L235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

:''{{ACMajority|active = 13 |inactive = 1 |recused = 1 |motion = yes}}''

;Support

:# Proposed, given the idea of a parole period seems to have some support, and trying to incorporate what I think is the sense of Euryalus' comment. This has been sitting here too long. Tinker as desired. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 08:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Line 1,038:

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

*{{userlinks|A1candidate}} (initiator)