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 Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 12 February 2021 (→‎Motion: MONGO (alt): enact motion). 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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: MONGO Motion (orig. case) 25 January 2021

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section 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).

To file a clarification or amendment 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
127

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. 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:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Amendment request: MONGO

Initiated by Steve M at 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
MONGO arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it.
  • Links to the main page, encyclopediadramatica.wiki and/or dramatica.online, may be permitted solely in the infobox of the article Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Statement by Steve M

While the site should 100% stay blacklisted, in the infobox, per WP:NOTCENSORED, there should be a link to the home page of the site, encyclopediadramatica.wiki and/or dramatica.online, inside the infobox. Other questionable sites, like wikipediocracy, another site with offwiki attacks against users, and goatse, a graphic NSFW shock site, have direct links to the site in the infobox. A whitelist to the homepages should exist solely for that purpose.

Statement by MONGO

No thanks. Just 'cause we have links to other hate sites doesn't mean we should have links to all. I wonder what the motivations would be to even link to it....are we going to gain some earth shattering encyclopedic revelation? I think a careful review of NOT is in order.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Its not a decision we would make in a modern case." It would be interesting to hear what exactly would be an ethical decision today. Not site ban those harassing others on and off site? Allow links to a site that not only did not have an article here due to no notability at the time as well as was being used to data mine real life information and post it allowing whatever nefarious creature might use it to engage in real life harassment?--MONGO (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't think it's fair to compare ED to Wikipediocracy or Goatse. Further, if someone wants to go there and we don't have a link, I imagine they can type ED into the browser and it will pop up. While Wikipedia isn't censored, that doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards to sites like ED, especially when not doing so isn't that big of an effect on people reading the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OhKayeSierra

The project as we know it today has very little resemblance to what it looked like in 2006. I think today's Wikipedia is much better at handling disruption and objectionable links at the community level than it was back then. With that said, I don't see any reason why this remedy should remain in place. As a content issue, I believe that it should fall to the editing community's consensus on how to handle links to ED. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I agree that this is something the present-day community is capable of handling on its own, and there isn't any need for ArbCom to remain in the picture. I think rather than removing it entirely though, the best thing to do would be to convert it into something modern - perhaps something like: "Links to and/or content sourced from Encyclopædia Dramatica should not be added to Wikipedia without an explicit consensus to do." Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L235 and Beeblebrox: this is why I suggested "should not be added" rather than "may be removed" - guidance rather than rules. Thinking about it again I'd probably have used the word "included" rather than "added" but that is minor. I'm not sure I would vote for this motion were I an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

This is a make-work request asking Arbcom to do something with no defined benefit but with the potential of enabling harassment. I suggest that arbs turn it around by closing this request with a statement that anyone wanting to add working links to ED should make a new request after obtaining consensus in an RfC that such working links would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2021 (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.

MONGO: Clerk notes

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

MONGO: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion: MONGO 5 2 2 Currently not passing 1
Motion: MONGO (alt) 8 0 0 Passing ·
Notes


MONGO: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Steve brought this to me to ask if it was worth pursuing, and I do feel it is least worthy of discussion. The case is 14 years old. Things were different. (in fact the drafters seem to have gone out of their way to say that ED is sometimes interesting and compelling, which was not my experience at all the few times I have looked at it) It's a disgusting, horrible site (apparently two sites now, infighting having caused a split) but we allow links to other disgusting, horrible sites, because this is an encyclopedia. If people want to go look at horrible stuff, it is not an encyclopedia's job to make that harder for them. I think that we can uphold the general blacklisting of the site while allowing the normal website link in the infobox. Frankly this is not the kind of thing the committee even involves itself in anymore, deciding what can and cannot be linked to. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now feeling like i "buried the lead" in my initial comment. Others have expressed it well below, we should just remove the committee from this issue and let the community decide what is pretty clearly a content issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the enforcement log, there are three logged enforcement actions. Two were overturned in less than 24 hours, the third was an indef block that remains in place. There has been no further activity in the intervening 13 years. I am about ready to propose removing remedy 1, with the explicit purpose of leaving the matter to the community to resolve as they will. This specific part of the case simply doesn't merit committee attention anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through that case was interesting, clearly a very different time on-wiki. Its not a decision we would make in a modern case. I think we should remove this from our jurisdiction and let the community decide, as this is a content decision. I'm not sure how to word the relevant motion, perhaps simply revoking Remedy 1 would do the trick. Its already on the blacklist, and its not going to get removed. Revoking Remedy 1 would allow the community to decide when/if it wanted to use the link. I am open to other solutions that allow the community to decide. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MONGO: I was referring just to the link remedy. Of course we still would ban editors for harassment and the other equally nasty guff that case featured. I just think that our modern processes would have ensured that such a link was already blacklisted. Early ArbCom heard a lot of cases that just would never reach it in more modern times. These days we hear a handful of cases a year. Back in the day there were dozens or more a year, and ArbCom was handing out remedies that would now be given by AN (like blacklisting a link or removing it in troublesome situations). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I like Thryduulf's wording. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Beeblebrox that it's not Wikipedia's job to pre-filter reader's decisions to visit such sites. By doing so, we inherently violate our own rules to not have a POV which sites are "good" or "bad", so I would grant this amendment request. However, I do see CaptainEek's point that this is in fact a content decision and thus should by ultimately decided by the community. Since the site is already blacklisted in general, we can just repeal remedy #1 of that case and let the community decide whether to place a link in the article. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From an editorial standpoint, I do not see the need for these links - and given how often they change their domain because they are taken down, it's not really a case of the wikipedia making it harder for editors - but rather do we want to be such a high profile place for an easy link to a site that cannot stand on its own for any length of time. However, this should be an editorial decision - not an Arbcom decision and I would support revoking the remedy and with a statement that content decisions should be made by the community. Due to the nature and level of the past (and I assume present) harassment, I would also support an amendment to say "the community may decide to allow the url on the ED wiki page only".
    From a technical perspective, can administrators add blacklisted links against the blacklist? If so, I would prefer it not whitelisted, to reduce the risk of multiple links being added to the page, even for a short time. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dreamy WormTT(talk) 13:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that the blacklist means we could repeal remedy #1 without any concrete harm, but apart from the possibility of such informational links on the ED article, I have no desire to do so. I would prefer a clarification on our part that if the community simply wants links in the infobox and external links section, we will not consider that to be a violation. (N.b., the URL is already in the infobox, just not as a live link.) --BDD (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf's suggestion is very reasonable. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, even in my short time as an arb, I've been pretty vocal in the "I trust the community to handle stuff" camp. Something about this request though, strikes me as different. Maybe it's just because I've now had a chance to read the emails about the anguish experienced by several editors over OUTING that I'm reluctant to change a sanction about this site given their glee at targeting enwiki editors. And maybe the best outlet for that discomfort is in any community discussion about changing this rather than here as an arb. But my unease is there and so I am bit conflicted about something that philosophically aligns with my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dreamy Jazz for those notes. I think the community and committee will find this helpful at ARCA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Beeblebrox. Maxim(talk) 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: MONGO

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is rescinded. The matter is remanded to the community as a content issue. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy remain intact.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. As proposer. The committee shouldn't be regulating content. This should in no way be taken as an endorsement of ED or linking to it, we are simply removing the committee from the equation. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Personal opinions aside, this is a content issue. A remedy like that would probably not pass today, so I see no reason to keep one alive just because it passed in the past. Regards SoWhy 09:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I strongly believe that we should be keeping this blacklisted, but it is a content decision. WormTT(talk) 10:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the above. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC) pulling support for the moment given the comments in the discussion below. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is for the community to decide. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I disagree with the idea that it's beyond our remit to assist editors who are facing harassment, including OUTING, because of their involvement as editors on Wikipedia. This case wouldn't play out the same way today - I suspect the community would indeed be able to handle it - but that doesn't mean, as this motion states, that it's purely a content decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is more about harassment than content. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I understand the principle cited by the majority, but frankly I just don't see this subject as a concern warranting our attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Here is a motion I think I can get behind: Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is rescinded. Editors who wish to insert a link to Encyclopædia Dramatica are encouraged to seek consensus through established community processes before doing so. The Committee expresses no opinion on any underlying content questions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Mildly copyedited. I would prefer that the last two sentences be replaced with something like "The Committee expresses no opinion on any underlying content questions." Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Barkeep49: Of course it is within our remit to deal with harassment. And posting links to offsite harassment or malicious doxxing is already against policy. What I do not think we would do today is say "linking to any part of <website> in any way, anywhere on Wikipedia, for any reason, is absolutely forbidden". That, combined with the fact that this remedy has not been invoked in 12 years, leads me to believe arbcom simply does not need to be involved in deciding whether or not a link to their main page is allowed in the article on the website itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a different formulation of this that I could support that follows your line here rather than the wording of the motion. The request was to be able to link the item in the infobox which I agree is a community decision - I started typing my comment under support even. But that's not what this motion says. It says that all ED related links are a community decision and that is not a statement I can support as that site (now sites thanks to an apparent fork) continues to harass and OUT editors, including Mongo. Ultimately I don't think my oppose is going to be a big deal - I think there will be arb support to pass this motion as worded. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I could support a motion which just doesn't say anything about the content at all. So basically remove the second sentence. If we want to add Kevin's wording about encouraging proactive consensus that's fine with me too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm about where Barkeep is at the moment. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: MONGO (alt)

Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion."

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. As proposer. This is my attempt to act on Thryduulf's comments, or at least my understanding of them. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this works nicely and is indeed the right frame for the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reluctantly. I don't think it's our role to articulate the level of consensus needed for any particular action when that level is not itself grounded in community policy. But I will vote for this because I think it's probably better than the status quo, and it is the level of consensus that I would expect if I were approaching this as a community member rather than a committee member. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's not perfect, but it's specific and closer to meeting the concerns expressed in the first motion. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The wording is fine by me, it still achieves the goal of preventing disruption but also giving the community the ability to use it if they desire. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In essence, in small numbers of people discussing, if one person is upset they can essentially blackball the link...which I have no problem with really anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I'd rather have the other motion, I can live with this version too. Maxim(talk) 19:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion
  • I'm not going to oppose this, I'd prefer we pass something rather than nothing, but I still feel as though arbcom should not be in the equation as far as the linking aspect. I guess I understand what you're going for here, trying to leave a tool in place to allow speedy removal of harmful links, but as I mentioned above, linking to offsite harassment is already prohibited by policy. I therefore believe that we simply do not need to be (and further should not be) involved at any level in making website-specific rules as to what can and cannot be linked to. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is also my hesitation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"should not be included" does sound preferable to "may be removed", but I won't stand in the way here – better to do something now than nothing. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1006332026"