Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan | none | (orig. case) | 23 July 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!)
- 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.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- 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. - 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-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:
Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan
Initiated by Thepharoah17 at 02:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- State the desired modification
Statement by Thepharoah17
I would like to have my topic ban removed. Last time I tried, I was not quite ready yet but now I am ready.
I mean I tried last year but my appeal was rejected. During these last two and a half years since I was topic banned, I have made about ten thousand edits (although none in 2022). I made numerous articles and categories. Sorry about that attempt in February. I wasn’t sure how to do this. When I tried to appeal last year, I went to WP:AE. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek: I was talking about my appeal last year.
- @Thyrduulf: I went to talk pages on Talk:Killing of Muammar Gaddafi, Talk:Yasser Arafat, Talk:New Orleans and Talk:2021–2022 Afghan protests (an article which I created). Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Are you saying that I’m currently to quote Thyrduulf "editing tendentiously and showing battleground behavior?" Even if I am, I promise I will not. The only reason I was topic banned was because a user did a WP:WITCHHUNT here. He claimed he was "trying to decide whether we need a new admin" when in fact it was just a WP:WITCHHUNT for anybody opposed to Kurdistan. I was just reverting a sockpuppet and the user didn't even get one of the edits right. He claimed I was removing a Kurdish name when in fact it was a Hebrew name (I'm not sure how you get those mixed up). Do you see any issues here and here? I don't really even have a strong opinion about Kurds and Kurdistan. I might have an opinion but it’s not a very strong one. Literally, everything was calm and then I find somebody hunting down my edits. It’s all really bizarre. I’m really asking for you to give me a chance. I was really just topic banned for reverting a sockpuppet and perhaps opposing Kurdistan and the case was opened by a banned user. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Literally, a user just did a witch hunt. You can get anybody banned like that. I could go to the administrators’ noticeboard and just hunt down all your bad edits and say you should be banned for them. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Pppery
This is pretty much the shortest appeal possible. It would be helpful to elaborate a bit on why your topic ban should be removed, what constructive contributions you have made elsewhere, etc. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
Thepharoah17 was topic banned in February 2021 for, in short, battleground mentality and tendentious editing. To support the appeal of anyone banned for those reasons I generally want to see evidence of constructive collaborative editing on (potentially) contentious topics and good talk page interaction. However, all I'm seeing since at least late 2021 is intense periods of edits that are almost entirely gnoming and copyediting (especially page moves and categorisation) with long gaps between them (e.g. they made exactly 4 edits between 6 December 2021 and 4 January 2023 and then no edits at all between 11 February and 20 July 2023). The edits I sampled all looked good with no evidence of topic ban breaches, but there was basically no evidence of the ability to edit collaboratively and constructively - the only example I've found of them discussing content on an article talk page since October 2021 is Talk:Muammar Gaddafi#Death, which demonstrates almost nothing about anything.
They have made a lot of edits, so I may have missed something, but if so I'm going to need to see both specific examples and an explanation of why they want the topic ban lifted now when it appears not to be hampering their editing at all. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Having now seen the last appeal, it's not clear that anything has changed since then. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Username
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.
Kurds and Kurdistan: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Kurds and Kurdistan: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Noting for the record that the most recent appeal was posted in Feb 2023 but removed shortly thereafter as being malformed, with no Arbitrator comment. I will note that there is mention of
last time I tried to do it
but I see no other edits to this page by Thepharoah17. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)- Ah, yes, AE July 2022, moved to ARCA and declined. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Decline per the insistence that absolutely nothing at all was done wrong and they are somehow the victim of a conspiracy. Primefac (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, AE July 2022, moved to ARCA and declined. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- This appeal does not speak to the reasons for the topic ban at all, so I really see no basis to even consider removing it at this time. You say you are ready now, but don't explain at all what would be different about your participation in this topic area were the ban tpo be removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Decline per the recent comments here. You seem to have forgotten that it was this very committee, not a witch hunt, that determined your edits were problematic. Substantial evidence was presented to us to establish that, and your appeal refutes exactly none of it. So if you were trying to convince the committee it was wrong to issue a sanction, you've actually done the exact opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is hardly an appeal. And if you're intending your last appeal to be your appeal, it included the word "please" nearly TWO HUNDRED times. So the answer is no. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Decline due the to lack of forward motion --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Decline. Thepharoah17, you have not addressed any of these issues identified at the ArbCom case. To make a successful appeal you need to show understanding of your sanction, and convince the Committee that those issues will not be repeated. Arguing that you were in the right, is doing the opposite of what you should be doing as it indicates you are likely to cause the same problems. SilkTork (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)