Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 68: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:57, 13 January 2022

Revision as of 07:54, 25 January 2022

Line 257:

{{atop}}

'''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> '''at''' 13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Line 270:

'''Explanation:''' A recent enforcement request concerned the application of a topic ban from "topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", i.e., using the same wording as in the abovementioned decision. The defendant argued that his edit at issue did not violate the ban because it concerned a topic only related to Armenia, not to "Armenia-Azerbaijan". In the event, the question presented above did not become relevant, as the enforcing administrators agreed that the edit at issue did relate to the conflict between the two countries and so was covered by the topic ban in any case. However, the question may become relevant in future enforcement requests. It would therefore be helpful to know how the scope of the topic covered by discretionary sanctions is to be interpreted.

My view is that the Committee likely intended the second interpretation (either Armenia or Azerbaijan), based both on the "broadly interpreted" clause and the finding at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Context]], which refers to the countries separately, in defining the affected area as "articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as a wide variety of related topics." However, because the wording of the decision is ambiguous, an explicit clarification (and perhaps an amendment of the wording) would be welcome. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 13:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:Gatoclass: I'm not aware that the same ambiguity could exist in other cases. The topics in other cases are relatively clearly described, e.g., as "related to the Balkans" or "to Eastern Europe". Only this decision employs a very peculiar hyphenated construction ("Armenia-Azerbaijan") in which the hyphen can be read either as an "and" or as an "or". <small>(Oh, and please nobody start arguing about whether the [[hyphen]] should be a [[dash]].)</small> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by Looie496 ===

Line 355:

{{atop}}

'''Initiated by ''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> '''at''' 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Line 368:

#'''Can discretionary sanctions ''warnings'' be meaningfully rescinded or appealed?''' <p>Warnings serve to inform editors about the possibility of discretionary sanctions in the event of later misconduct. Assuming the warning is somehow undone, does the authority to impose sanctions based on that warning also disappear? If yes, this may make the discretionary sanctions system much more prone to obstruction, as it provides an opportunity for extremely lengthy and acrimonious discussions (as in this case) long before any ''actual sanctions'' are even considered. <p>'''Recommendation:''' I recommend to clarify (and codify) that warnings can only be appealed with regard to the question of whether the warner is an uninvolved administrator. This helps others to avoid inadvertently making unactionable arbitration enforcement (AE) requests based on the invalid warning. However, appeals should not be admissible with regard to the reasons given (if any) for the warning, perhaps excepting patent abuse. That's because the warning does not impose any restrictions, but only reminds editors of the conduct standards expected of them in any case. Also, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Warnings|rules]] do not seem to even require any misconduct as a reason for a warning, as they require case-specific counseling only "where appropriate". Implicitly, they only require that the warner has ''some'' grounds on which to be concerned about the warned editor's edits. Practice at [[WP:AE]] (somewhat dubiously?) is to even allow discretionary sanctions in some cases where the editor has not even been individually warned for ''any'' reason: article-level sanctions, and sanctions against parties to the original case and earlier AE requests.

#'''In what (if any) venue may such warnings be appealed? Who reviews the appeal, and how is a successful appeal determined?''' <p>Such warnings are AE actions, but how these are appealed is generally unclear: <p>Obviously they can be appealed directly to the Committee. But what, if any, venues for community review exist? [[WP:AC/P#Reversal of enforcement actions|AC/P]] forbids ''administrators'' (but not others?) to overturn AE actions except "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)." Phrased as a restriction, this does not create a venue of (or right to) appeal, as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=535792462 Coren highlighted]. <p>[[WP:AC/DS]] provides that "Discretionary sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee". This does establish a venue of appeal, but raises more questions: Who makes the appeal decision – uninvolved admins, as is usual at WP:AE, or all uninvolved editors, as per the abovementioned provision? What is the correct forum – WP:AN(/I), as per the first provision, or WP:AE, as per the second provision? Is a ''warning'' a discretionary sanction according to the meaning of the second provision, and therefore appealable? Are there now separate procedures for appealing DS and for appealing other AE actions? The two provisions and their relationship to one another require clarification. <p>'''Recommendation:''' I recommend to either delegate all appeals to a (rotating?) panel of arbitrators, while allowing ''[[en banc]]'' review; or to clarify that either only DS are appealable (with decisions made by consensus of uninvolved admins at [[WP:AE]]); or that this DS appeals procedure is open to ''all'' AE actions, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=535778795 per AGK]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 21:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

====Summary of responses====

Line 377:

#'''Whose views matter in determining consensus about appeals of AE measures to a community forum – those of uninvolved admins, or uninvolved editors, or all editors?''' <br>''Uninvolved administrators:'' AGK (after clarifying procedure accordingly)

There are 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8. So far no answer has the support of a majority of the Committee. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 15:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by NE Ent ===

Line 743:

===Query by Sandstein===

I'm commenting here in an administrative capacity as one of the administrators active at [[WP:AE]]. There is currently [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Rich Farmbrough|an earlier enforcement request]] open relating to the restriction that Rich Farmbrough asks to be lifted here. It appears that he has submitted this amendment request instead of responding to the enforcement request. I would like to ask arbitrators whether the processing of the enforcement request should be stayed pending the disposition of this amendment request, or not. (Pending an answer, I, at least, won't act on the enforcement request). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks, T. Canens, for the procedural clarification. I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=546985904#Rich_Farmbrough closed the AE request] with a one-year block of Rich Farmbrough, subject of course to any modifications arbitrators may decide to make as a result of this request. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 23:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

===Comment by A Quest for Knowledge===

Line 967:

*clarifying the relevant wording of WP:AC/DS, and

*standardizing the format, title etc. of the logging subsections of all DS case pages, which are rather diverse at the moment.

I understand that {{user|AGK}} is currently evaluating, pursuant to a now-archived clarification request by me, whether under DS, "warnings" should be replaced by "notifications" that do not presuppose misconduct.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 19:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

=== Statement by KillerChihuahua===