This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This sentence of the decision is the entire basis for the policy at WP:PROJSOCK. I find it vague and unhelpful. The remainder of the socking policy already forbids the abusive use of multiple accounts. As ArbCom is specifically not empowered to dictate policy, I propose this sentence be stricken from the decision and links to it removed from the the socking policy, which would allow the community to freely modify the policy as it sees fit without seeming to be "going against an ArbCom decision." This will not actually change the socking policy itself.
Do we really need to change a 14 year old case? The principles are all obiter dicta at best anyways. They may be persuasive as to what policy looked like at a time, but they flow from policy, not vice versa. The community could turn the see on the policy page into a see also or a contra, if it wanted to. The fact that a portion of the community uses the principle as a reason for not changing the policy is not a good argument for going around the community and changing the principle. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Principles in arbitration cases always reflect the state of policy at the time of the case. I don't think it is necessary for each change to a policy to trigger revisions to all affected principles for past cases. To make it easier for future reference, going forward it would be helpful if principles linked to specific versions of the appropriate policy pages. isaacl ( talk) 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that the community has already modified the Arbcom decision by adding the clause I have marked in bold. Internal discussions: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Discussions that directly affect a legitimate alternate account in project space are permitted.
So in my understanding, if an editor has an undisclosed alt account to edit articles on a topic they avoid with their main account, they can take part in AFD discussions with that account if one of the articles they edit with it has been nominated for deletion, and I think they can nominate that article for DYK, GA and FA, or file a request at RFPP or report a vandal at AIV. Providing of course they don't take part in any of those discussions with other unlinked accounts - but that is already covered in the policy. I think those exemptions are sensible and it would be useful if Arbcom was to confirm that it didn't intend to have the PrivateMusings decision taken sufficiently literally as to prevent an editor submitting an article for FA review etc.
That still leaves us with the hypothetical scenario where an editor submits an RFA after a snarky interaction with someone's alt account. Taking the current policy literally, the holder of the alt account would only be able to oppose with their main account, and not refer to the interaction with their alt account. If the editor stayed away from the RFA with their main account, but opposed with their sock using the rational "Oppose per [diff] this incident" that would be a blockable offense as they would be taking part in a project space discussion that only indirectly involved them. I don't see a good reason for such a bureaucratic restriction, and would be happy if Arbcom were to set aside that part of the Private Musings decision.
No one disputes that we need rules against undisclosed alt accounts being used for double voting. But I'm not seeing any advantage in the extra bureaucracy of stopping alt accounts from participating in project space, and there are some downsides, especially if the PrivateMusings decision were taken literally, rather than as now, radically reinterpreted.
I'm neutral on whether the arbs should enact the actual proposal, but should they choose not to, a clear-cut statement that they have no objection to the Community re-writing the policy and that this principle should not be viewed as preventing that would be an alternate means of settling the concern Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Note that the footnote was removed by Jehochman with this edit yesterday. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Benevolent human at 16:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
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
Should ARBPIA apply to allegations of whether Ilhan Omar invoked anti-Semitic canards when discussing Jewish Americans? The controversy stems from Ilhan Omar allegedly saying that Jewish Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. My view was: Dual loyalty implies people are doing nice things for Israel since they're loyal to Israel, but the US has, in part due to AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, collaboration on Iran issues, favorable trade arrangements, technology development, etc. My sense for the other view is that the Israeli-Arab conflict tends to also be mentioned tangentially in some but not all articles that discuss this incident, but articles often provide digressions and context aside from discussing the primary manner of hand. Here is a representative article: [2]
Response to Nishidani: this came up in the context of discussing whether to add a new sentence to the lead, not in the context of the existing sections (which might not have the proper heading in any case).
Response to Muboshgu: Yes, Omar sometimes says things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict too at other times and in other statements. But not everything related to Israel is about its conflicts with its neighbors.
Response to Selfstudier: this is the conversation where we decided to take it here User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Invalid_RfC_closure?. We've been disputing this issue for weeks (for example, several of the closed RfCs on Talk:Ilhan Omar.
Response to The Four Deuces: I have a great deal of respect for you, so I was sad to see how misleading your statement was. The reinsertion after the failed RfC for AOC took into account the points made in the RfC and incorporated it (see here). I subsequently immediately let the issue drop and took a break after the temperature of the conversation got too high. I've consistently followed all Wikipedia policies and ARBCOM rulings. There's this recurrent narrative that keeps being brought up that because I opened three RfCs, I'm ignoring previous RfCs. The reality the first two RfCs were not allowed to come to conclusion because of disputes over the scope of ARBPIA. After the first two RfCs were disrupted, I waited until I was extended confirmed before reopening the present one to circumvent the issue, but now other editors who are trying to participate are being harassed that they can't because of ARBPIA. Which is what brought us here today. (Also seems manipulative to encourage me to open this ARBCOM request on your talk page, and then once I do so ask for sanctions be put against me there, but oh well.)
Response to Nableezy: Here's a counterexample: User_talk:Polymath03. I did continue Recent Change Patrol activities after I reached 500 edits.
Response to NightHeron: [3]
Response to Barkeep49: We tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus: Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Above_RfC_and_ARBPIA. Then I tried to open an RfC, but other editors closed it and told me I had to come here: [4] Benevolent human ( talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Black Kite: Although I've had a minority opinion, that itself isn't a violation of policy. I believe that I've followed the letter and spirit of all relevant policies and ARBCOM rulings to the best of my ability and have respected consensus when it has been established through proper procedures. If a consensus can be binding before a formal procedure like an RfC is complete, then I'm misunderstanding something, which is possible. My understanding of how things worked was that editors who happened to be at a page discussed amongst themselves, and if they couldn't come to a compromise, they then invoked a process like this to get the wider community to weigh in.
Beyond my Ken: My understanding was that only _one_ RfC failed. The first two RfCs were cancelled for alleged procedural reasons before they were allowed to start. I'll admit that because the third RfC has now failed, this entire question might now be moot. Given that the RfC has now failed, this probably shouldn't be brought up for another RfC for at least a year. In my view, the consensus was not established until this recent RfC was closed.
Response to JayBeeEll: I did follow up on our conversation by asking on ANI, but brought it here when nobody there responded.
Even narrowly construed, I believe ARBPIA4 applies. It's clear from Bh's comments that they want the lead to summarize at least two 2019 Omar controversies. In the first, Omar's "Benjamins" tweet, the context was possible sanction of Omar and Rashida Tlaib for their support of the BDS movement. The second, in which Omar was accused of using the dual-loyalty anti-semitic canard, began as a talk by Omar and Tlaib. Omar's comments were about the I-P conflict. Bh is right that it's possible to support or criticize Israel for things that have nothing to do with Arabs or Palestine, but all of the incidents motivating this RfC are inextricably tied to the conflict ARBPIA4 covers. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Just in case it is not clear, this concerns a large section with three subdivisions at Ilhan Omar. As the main section title itself declares, these paragraphs all deal with the I/P conflict. Nishidani ( talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Benevolent human references the dual loyalty canard, which is directly referencing Israel. The Israel-Palestine issue is to be "broadly construed", so arguing that dual loyalty references American Jews and not Israel is an absurd argument to make. With Omar's loud support of BDS, there is no separating out the I-P issue from Omar on issues that pertain more directly to American Jews. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I commented at that talk page that, at a minimum, "broadly construed" covers the case and it may not even need that particular caveat for efficacy. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This came here too quickly, more discussion should have taken place at the talk page and I think consensus would have come about fairly quickly in the normal course. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Humph, seems more going on here than I was aware of, the initial filing now does not appear as a standalone attempt to work something out but instead a continuation of something prior. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Benevolent human, formerly User:Pretzel butterfly, has created three unsuccessful RfCs about inclusion of accusations of anti-Semitism against Ilhan Omar since June 1 2021: Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC on anti-Semitism accusations in lead [20:21, 1 June 2021] [5], Talk:Ilhan Omar#New information [02:25, 12 June 2021] [6] and Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC [21:22, 12 June 2021]. [7] At last count the vote for the third RfC, which is still open, stands at 17-3 against.
Benevolent human previously tried to include accusations of anti-Semitism against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#AOC's disputes with Jewish groups [18:33, 18 December 2020] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#RfC about AOC's disputes with Jewish organizations [22:29, 6 January 2021] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#AOC and Israel. [14:32, 17 April 2021] After failing in the RfC, Pretzel Butterfly reinserted the disputed text. See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#Yet again [00:52, 11 January 2021]. Omar and AOC are close allies in the U.S. Congress.
This editor is clearly disruptive, arguing their views long after it was clear they had no support. I recommend a topic ban for U.S. politics. Under their previous account, I informed the editor of American politics AE [22:43, 10 January 2021]. [8] (While I used the previous date of 1932 - it's now 1992 - I think the notice was valid.)
TFD ( talk) 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers content disputes, but the issue here was whether the 500/30 Rule, prohibiting new editors from editing Palestine-Israel articles, applied, which is not a content issue. TFD ( talk) 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I really don't see how this is remotely ripe for Arbcom, even as a clarification request. If any action is considered here, it should be a topic ban for Benevolent human, and extended confirmed should be revoked for gaming by welcoming many editors who made a handful of edits, but neither of those require arbcom intervention. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 18:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The only part of this that could conceivably use ArbCom weighing in on is what are the dispute resolution routes for this? Would this be like some other arbitration enforcement where a single admin can make a call but a consensus of admins would be needed to overrule it? I do find the opening editor's zealousness on this topic to be somewhere between mildly disruptive to blatantly tendentious, and the gaming of EC status is also something that ArbCom ruling about would be helpful as prior editors who I thought were gaming the system by repeatedly making tiny edits at such a rapid clip to get past the barrier and then shortly after reverting to normal editing (eg adding whitspace between an infobox and the lead and then removing whitespace between the infobox and the lead) or welcoming editors at a rate of about 4 per minute, despite never having welcomed an editor before needing to reach EC status to start another RFC within the topic area. Those things I think could use ArbCom speaking about. Whether or not this obviously related subject is related is not one of the things that really need your attention though. nableezy - 19:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It shouldn't be necessary for ArbCom to clarify what's already completely clear to everyone except for one user. Talk:Ilhan Omar prominently displays a detailed warning that certain parts of the article are subject to ARBPIA. This obviously means the parts dealing with controversies over Omar's statements on US support for Israel in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Several editors explained to Bh the applicability of ARBPIA, see [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], but Bh insists that all of us are wrong. The real issue seems to be Bh's WP:IDHT. NightHeron ( talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at this article from an admin point of view, I would be looking at the two editors who have persistently tried to insert negative content into this BLP, those two being
User:Benevolent human and
User:Toa_Nidhiki05.
Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC) This is probably a separate issue, so striking.
Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This request is beyond ludicrous. Three RfCs haven't gone BH's way, so they come here to try and game the system and do an end-run around obvious community consensus. There should be no pussyfooting around this, BH needs to be topic banned from Omar and AOC, perhaps the entire subject of antisemitism. They are clearly disruptive. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I [procedurally, but also with a rationale based on strength of arguments and the fact it was snowing...] closed the first RfC (having no prior involvement on that page, and nothing significant since) after having determined that Omar's comments and position about Israel and its actions (in the context of the Arab-Israel conflict) are obviously, "broadly construed", "related to the Arab-Israeli" conflict. BH challenged this and I explained on their talk page. I don't think there's too much grounds for clarification, except maybe re-affirming that "broadly construed" means "when in doubt, yes". RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the majority of editors above that this clearly falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and with a number of editors who don't even think the qualifier "broadly construed" is necessary to see that this is the case. I told Benevolent human as much back on June 1. I am disappointed to see that they've continued pushing the issue, as well as trying to game the 500-edit limitation. -- JBL ( talk) 10:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments [here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus. However, it looks to me like everyone except for you thinks this is covered by the ARBPIA area of conflict; your disagreement alone isn't enough to say the community
couldn't come to a consensus. That's not how consensus on Wikipedia works. I would decline this clarification request without action. @ Nableezy: The way it works is that if an admin actually takes an arbitration enforcement action on the basis that the dispute is covered by ARBPIA, then that action is presumed to be correct unless it is reversed on appeal, per note 4 of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Modifications by administrators. However, there may not have been an explicit AE action here. KevinL ( alt of L235 · t · c) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ritchie333 at 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
In August 2019, I was subject to an indefinite interaction ban with the user “Praxidicae”. The announcement of the ban is here. Since then I was blocked twice on 9 August and 19 October 2019. I did not appeal the first block as I was taking an extended leave of absence when it was placed. I appealed the second block successfully; the appeal is here.
During this period, I was having issues with off-wiki events unrelated to Wikipedia (which Arbcom have been informed of), which caused me to lash out at people. I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again. Administrators should be held to a high level of civility and accountability, and the best way I can illustrate that is to lead by example. I do not foresee incidents like these happening again. I make no comments on the views of others in the above threads, and would invite you to read them and judge for yourself.
The principal reason for reviewing the ban is I would like to be able to cite these events as an example in the ongoing discussions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct. In particular, it would be a useful example to highlight how administrators can and should be sanctioned, and how harassment-based sanctions must be placed carefully otherwise they may reduce the community’s trust in how they are handled. As a secondary reason, it would be helpful to delete articles this user tags as {{
db-copyvio}}
, which I can't see being problematic.
As a secondary choice, and an alternative to vacating the ban, I have proposed an alternative to tighten the restriction to just replies in discussions. However, even if the ban is revoked entirely, I do not intend to directly interact or converse with the other user, and that will continue to be the case.
It has been drawn to my attention that a further reason for vacating the ban would be it would allow Praxidicae to have a reasonable run at Request for Adminship. I have no opinion on this, and should it occur, I will recuse from the RfA and not comment on it; in a similar manner, I recused from !voting at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2.
I have reviewed this appeal with Arbcom, who support posting it here. For obvious reasons, I have not notified the other party directly (does this violate an interaction ban?) and would be helpful if a clerk or other editor could do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I can’t make a meaningful statement as I have a lot going on in real life that takes precedence and I do not have access to a computer for the foreseeable future. I do however oppose any loosening of this restriction or any changes given the multiple violations and I’m confused by the rfa statement as this iban doesn’t preclude me from running, though I have no desire to ever rfa on English Wikipedia so it’s a non starter. I don’t have the mental bandwidth to say or deal with this beyond this brief statement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea - I don't believe Ritchie has ever really understood how seriously troubling his behaviour was in relation to Praxidicae and as a result, I'm not entirely convinced they're genuinely well placed to avoid repeating such behaviour - though of course a repetition of such behaviour this time around might result in more stricter sanction, an outcome both justifiable and regrettable in equal measure. That being the case, I generally support retaining the IBAN as previously imposed.
I also find myself being incredibly puzzled by the mention of RfA - if Ritchie doesn't intend to take part in any RfA concerning Praxidicae, why would they need the interaction ban removed, what would they intend to say that is prevented by an interaction ban but which isn't involvement in the RfA itself ? I know Ritchie has tried to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper at RfA, so I'm particularly curious as to why he thinks he needs the IBAN lifted in relation to any Praxidicae RfA.
-- Nick ( talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Nick, I read Ritchie's statement as saying that they didn't want the interaction ban being a barrier to Praxidicae running for admin rather than some sort of gatekeeper role. Whether that would work is a different matter, however, as memories are long at RfA. Ritchie raises an interesting point in that they want to use their case to inform discussions about the proposed UCOC, where it may be relevant. Does Praxidicae ( talk · contribs) (or anyone else involved in the case) have a problem with discussing it in the context of the UCOC? If not, could it be possible to lift the interaction ban just for this purpose? Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems a sensible request. To address Nicks "analyses": Ritchie's no more a gatekeeper than most other RfA regs – he's not one of the most effective opposers. As per Valeree, Ritchie's more of a door opener at RfA – he likes to find people to nominate & support their ticket, as do several other admins. In a small way, requesting this iban lift helps open the RfA door for Praxidicae, should she be interested in that. Ritchie's well liked, perhaps especially by the dozen or so RfA regs that have met him in person (he rolled 16 on Charisma). While Ritchie now views his past interactions with Prax as a mistake, from other perspectives they were far from "seriously troubling". They could be seen as reasonable pro newbie balancing of Prax's quite high quality control standards. Some may see the (sort of) 1-way iBan as an injustice and be less likely to oppose if it's lifted. (To be clear we're probably only talking about 1-4 opposes here, and none would be likely to explicitly say they were opposing due to the Ritchie iban. Or maybe some are seeing it as a 2 way ban & hence a sanction against Prax, & again a lift could possibly avoid 1-2 potential RfA opposers) Other than the reasons Ritchies gave, lifting the iban could avoid situations like the 2nd block which was technically correctly but judged by the community as unnecessary. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I like and respect both Ritchie and Prax, and found Ritchie's behavior at the time puzzling and disappointing. I believe him when he says the circumstances that led to that have changed.
If I understand right, there are three main reasons to reduce/remove:
My lingering concerns are threefold:
In general, depending on how Prax responds, I think the ArbCom should be open to the idea of removing or relaxing the iban, but maybe with an unofficial agreement (not written down somewhere as an Official Sanction) between two good faith editors:
Maybe that's too complicated, I don't know. If this does pass, I hope it does some good for both editors to note that someone (me) who's judgement I think is thought well of by both parties, believes that the other editor is generally a good egg, and that they can be trusted to abide by something informally agree to. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Speaking as a Meta-Wiki administrator and someone involved in UCoC development, the vast majority of UCoC discussions and consultations occur on Meta-Wiki, with the exception of a handful of local language consultations, such as this. I am not sure about the English Wikipedia's policy as it relates to Arbitration Committee sanctions and their applicability to actions on other Wikimedia projects; generally, if the IBAN applies solely to the English Wikipedia, it would not significantly hinder Ritchie's ability to participate in UCOC discussions in the capacity that they described. Regards, Vermont ( talk) 17:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel that the outcome of the amendment request should be determined by a desire to use this situation as an example in code of conduct discussions. Other editors can bring it up.
I disagree with setting conditions that limit what can be said in code of conduct discussions. If the commenter cannot speak candidly, it's harder to weigh the significance of the example of admin sanctions being raised. isaacl ( talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
No comment on the request itself, and it predates my time, but every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true
I suspect that may have been my comment at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vami IV claiming that admins don't get blocked unilaterally by another admin, and as a counter-example I was given a link to Ritchie being blocked by an arb enforcing this IBAN.
So yes, I suppose an admin was technically blocked for something (albeit I'm not sure arbitration enforcement of an ArbCom remedy counts). One needn't look further than Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Ritchie333_and_Praxidicae to see exactly what the cost was of sanctioning an admin. That is, 37,923 words (253,158 characters) of hot air. Given this, it's debatable whether this is a good example to prove "admins aren't above the law". ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem with relaxing the ban to only include replying to each other in discussions, is that both editors are active in speedy deletions, with Praxidicae looking to rid Wikipedia of spam and COI and Ritchie coming from the opposite end of wanting to rescue articles. The October 2019 block of Ritchie came about when he deleted the copyvio and rebooted an article that Praxidicae had tagged for deletion. Whether that counted as "undoing each other's edits" as described in
WP:IBAN was much debated at
User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_103. In that discussion
Premeditated Chaos said one of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them
and
AmandaNP said, it seems like Ritchie is stalking Praxidicae's contributions with the amount of time between edits and frequency of this occurring. This is directly prohibited in our harassment policy and is why the IBan was enforced here.
Ritchie has denied doing this, but I think it would be wise for him to continue to avoid removing, addressing or otherwise involving himself at all with any of Praxidicae's CSD tags if the ban is loosened.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader: I'm just chiming in here to note that, looking at the discussion, most of the comments after Ritchie's Iban was imposed seemed to mainly be due to heightened tensions after the Fram case, and people dissatisfied with a decision based on private evidence, not just because of an admin being sanctioned. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 00:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Another comment: Isn't this an appeal of a 2-way interaction ban, and not of a one-way ban? I've seen a couple of people refer to this as a one-way Iban appeal, but isn't the interaction ban 2-way? Jackattack1597 ( talk) 22:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the siteand that it's up to them they can't
air their concerns, as I am reasonable. Further, are you now saying that you "
have falsely been accused of harassment" (since you say
that's a fair description of what's happened to me... I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else. So have the grounds of appeal shifted this being something for which you apologised for in your opening statement (indeed, profusely) to something which should never have happened and was completely unfair to you. These are two very different things. In the first case, there is an acceptance of culpability but a promise the same behaviour won't happen again; in the second, there's pushback against the original premise and a concomitant implication of your own blamelessness. —— Serial 11:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement irrelevant to the merits of the amendment request (clerk action). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've not had much to do with this matter but happen to notice a fresh example which indicates that the root cause issue here is overzealous tagging by Praxidicae. The topic in question is Mrs Hinch – a famous cleaner, influencer and successful author. The recent timeline is:
The editors who tried to delete this seemed quite out of step with the general consensus and so it is they that should pull their horns in. The use of G11 seemed quite excessive and such tagging will naturally generate some pushback. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC) |
Andrew Davidson, In as much as I have respect for you and your dedication to the collaborative project I am nonplus that you mention Praxi in the same sentence where the word “Over zealous” is used, she sets a higher bar, but overzealous? I don’t believe this and furthermore I believe that is rude & considering to them and their body of work. Per your example above, if Praxi moved the article to Draftspace & the editor unilaterally moves it back to mainspace without a dialogue of any sort, that is wrong, The editor should have submitted it via AFC instead of move-war. As for Your second point, if the article is promotional in nature then pray tell why shouldn’t it be G11 tagged? Thirdly, an admin declining a G11 request is immaterial. Lastly when an article has been moved to draft and the same editor moves back to mainspace that is move warring like I earlier stated and sending the article to AFD is usually the best course of action. Celestina007 ( talk) 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@ BDD: FWIW I can think of two cases from the past year wherein an editor was blocked for violating an IBAN for asking about the IBAN (specifically for seeking to turn a one-way into a two-way). Both were overturned by the community on appeal, but a subsequent effort (by me) to codify that into policy did not gain consensus. Also, I started an RFC that would have allowed RFA candidates to discuss an IBAN during an RFA (to answer questions about it), and that didn't gain consensus, either. Finally, there was a recent appeal of an 18-month-old IBAN that had not been violated, and the appeal did not gain consensus because one party didn't agree to it. A subsequent village pump thread to put an expiration date on IBANs (not by me) was snow opposed. I assume links aren't necessary, but my point is: there is definitely enforcement of IBANs that is overzealous in my view but that appears to be supported by the community nevertheless (so I think Ritchie's risk of getting into trouble just for discussing the IBAN is non-trivial), and it appears the community doesn't want one-way IBANs lifted without the agreement of both parties (and Prax doesn't agree here). I don't know if the IBAN here should be lifted or not (I don't know the details of this case) but I think the concerns all around are reasonable. IBANs are a tricky problem in my view, and my sense is that the community takes them very seriously and enforces them very strictly. Levivich 16:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the history of how the ban has been enforced I can fully understand why Ritchie is concerned about mentioning the ban at all in the UCOC discussions. Given that experienced editors in good standing have here expressed different views about whether it would or would not be a violation then this request seems all the more sensible. The adage that it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission very much does not hold true for Wikipedia editors with active sanctions.
I have my own issues regarding Prax (entirely off-topic here) and I know Ritchie from meetups (back when such things wouldn't kill us) so I'm not going to comment on the merits or otherwise or removing the ban. If it is not removed or loosened then it seems to me that Ritchie's primary desire could be facilitated by a clarification/amendment explicitly stating that they may comment about the IBAN and their experiences of it and its enforcement in discussions about dispute resolution processes, experiences, etc. as long as any references to Prax are avoided where possible and kept to the absolute minimum where it isn't. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the
interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.with
RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc.
In several ARBPIA RMs, most recently at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, many non-500/30 editors have commented in RMs, unaware that the restriction applies to those discussions. ArbCom seemed to clarify (by majority, although not without dissent) in this ARCA that RMs are included in that provision, but didn't amend the actual remedy with their clarification. It's not particularly convenient for editors to have to link to and explain Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) (an ARCA archive) every time a comment is struck and a non-500/30 user is confused by, or objects to, the striking. Requesting that the section be amended, as it was in this amendment, so that it's clearer for users, and so that Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement can be amended with the new wording as well.
I think it would also help if Template:Requested move/dated was amended to include a reminder of the restriction on ARBPIA4 pages. (edit: I've cooked up something for this part at Template_talk:Requested_move#Automatic_notice_of_restrictions_on_ARBPIA_pages)
The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages.My reading was that editing on talk pages is already caught within the provision, and then is exempted below. I'm not sure the alternate interpretation works; if editing on talk pages is already not part of the prohibition (
are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict), then what would be the point of adding it to
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:? There'd be no need to exempt something that is already not prohibited. The wording of B(1) seems to support this interpretation, since it suggests the exemption doesn't apply to other namespaces (hence implying that the prohibition does already apply to non-article content). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This happens frequently, non ec's even open Afd's in the topic area ( Diff]. The problem is mainly although not exclusively with new editors that wander into the topic area without a clear idea of what's involved and don't really pay attention to the notices. I think it might continue to occur even if the notices and whatnot were all clarified, which they anyway should be. Maybe new editors need a very clear heads up about AP, IP and the rest. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
In practice, an RM isn't much different to an RFC (and can be just as fraught) so if a non-ec can't participate in an RFC (they can't) then they should not be able to participate in an RM either. They can discuss it (or an RFC) on the talk page, sure, why not, just not formally participate or "vote". Selfstudier ( talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I have to confess that I find this situation baffling. There is a procedure that experienced editors understand, or thought they did, with a theoretical hole in it, namely RMs and I guess AfDs as well, because it says "etc". Instead of filling in the hole and making things easier to explain (to inexperienced editors) we seem instead to want to make the hole(s) official, to make the explanations even more complicated and to allow once more the easy access of socks to formal discussions. An AfD is certainly not an edit request and I think it is better to think of an RM as an RFC about the title of an article. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
What I would want to say if it were as easy as that is something like "Non ec's cannot participate in formal discussions in IP area" where "formal discussions" means anything with a "vote", wherever it is. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between RFC and RM. Though both process are not decided by majority but by strength of arguments still if there are many proponents of certain view ussally it will be decided accordingly. The provision meant to disallow socks to influence on such process so there is no logic to allow it in AFD but not in RFC which both happen on talk page -- Shrike ( talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
An RM is essentially just a type of RfC and there is no logic to having different rules about who can contribute to them. The previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority, and soon afterwards a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.
" If the Committee wishes to add RM after RfC in the body of the remedy, fine, otherwise I don't see the case for any changes.
On the matter of advising editors of the rules, things are suboptimal. No ordinary editor should ever have to search ARCA. The solution is to keep Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles always up to date with all and only the current rules on display and all other stuff relegated to wikilinks.
To those who want to reverse the previous decision about RMs, you should know that RMs are frequently the most hotly debated issues on ARBPIA talk pages. What will happen if the restriction is lifted is that RMs will return to the Wild West where a lot of IPs and new accounts show up and !vote as a block. I'm confident that that is often the result of off-wiki canvassing. Although closers can choose to ignore some of the chaff, why should they have to? Non-ec people who want to comment can do so outside the boundaries of the formal RM. Zero talk 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. as an non-autoconfirmed user, i must have objectional argument about the amendment request. I think the previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority about, and a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.
" I not involved in the motion but i recognized that it is more applicable. But for me, the decision is not enough. I also propose an amendment to the ARBIPA4 to includes a page move ban topic-wide for all contents related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, any users, even EC users, cannot move any ARBIPA page or contents unless there is strong and reasonable consensus about it because all page moves initiative by EC users is too bad so only administrators can move any contents related to the Arab-Israeli page, which in other words, page move right by non-administrator for the topic is revoked. (Please read the concern on
archival talk page).
182.1.13.41 (
talk) 06:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely don't see any reason for the current discretionary sanctions page putting a clarification in a note. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.Footnote: In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee
clarified that
requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.
needs to be changed. Either A) get rid of the {{
refn}} and integrate it directly into the text: "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc." (which if it weren't an ArbCom page I'd suggest somebody boldly change it) or B) remove the footnote (if for some odd reason RMs are not "internal project discussions"). Of course I'm for option A)
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Addressing the problem of widespread misuse of sockpuppet accounts was a major driver behind ARBPIA4, a major element of that misuse being to stack consensus-establishing discussions. In theory, consesus is supposed to be established by the quality of arguments; in practice, it often comes down to a vote in all but name. Sockpuppet accounts were being used to weigh the scales. The 500/30 rule was introduced to make life more difficult for sockmasters (though part of its effectiveness depends on the assiduous identification and blocking of sock accounts). If I remember correctly, the allowing of commenting on affected talkpages by non-EC editors was a later concession. I think that the opening up of any process which depends on the establishment of consensus, including RMs, should be given very careful thought. In terms of explaining to non-EC editors why their comments have been struck from consensus-establishing discussions, I'm puzzled why just suppying a link to the ARBPIA General Sanction and pointing out the 500/30 restriction wouldn't, in most cases, be sufficient. ← ZScarpia 11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
<@ Bradv:> With regard to what constitutes content, see the ARBPIA4 definition of the "area of conflict", which, at least to me, seems to imply that "content" includes more than what is contained in articles themselves:
b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
A discussion of the wording to adopt was carried out during the ARBPIA workshop stage here, with the wording proposed by @ AGK: being adopted.
← ZScarpia 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to codify previous clarifications and make technical improvements, Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions") is amended:
"editing content within the area of conflict"with
"editing within the area of conflict";
"other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc."with
"other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, requested move discussions, etc."; and
"edits made to content within the area of conflict"with
"edits made within the area of conflict".
Editors who are not eligible ... may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.(emphasis added). Later it is clarified that
This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..., which to me means anything not on the talk page (e.g. WP-space, primarily). An RM is a form of edit request (though one that requires consensus) that falls within the first part of 5.b.1 and not in the second. Primefac ( talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "other internal project discussions"
, as used in
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include
requested moves.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This amendment request is closed without action.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shibbolethink at 01:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
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
Does the ArbCom decision on COVID-19 affect Gain-of-function research? There has recently been an increase in talk page activity and some off-site canvassing about this article and how it relates to certain COVID-19 conspiracy theories (namely that the virus was generated using bioengineering in a laboratory (usually suggested to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It may soon become helpful to request application of these sanctions if SPAs show up or if the page becomes more disrupted, so I ask: Do the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions apply to this article? Thanks.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not 100% clear on who would be a relevant party to this clarification request, if anyone. I am happy to include or notify any other users as requested. I added a notification over at the talk page in question just to be safe [17]. Thank you.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course Gain-of-function research is part of the speculation regarding Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I'll watch the article for a while and may be able to help as an uninvolved administrator but am busy at the moment. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
At present, the interest in gain of function research --at least on WP-- is mostly because of the implications for the origin of COVID, bu the topic is much broader, and arguments about the appropriateness of this type of study were raised long before Covid. There could perfectly well (& in my opinion should) be an article on the subject not specifically discussing Covid, but giving a link to a breakout page where that possible example would be discussed. Applying DS here would discourage proper use of the page for the general topic.
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
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
Are the sanctions from WP:ARBPS applicable to pseudohistory? tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ BDD: The generic dispute is how fundamentalist believers want to state their own view of the Bible and of the history of Christianity in the voice of Wikipedia, i.e. against rendering the views of mainstream Bible scholars, which fundamentalists consider them to be heretical. But it also covers nationalist pseudohistory (e.g. Dacianism). tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It should be considered that, more and more, the study of history, especially ancient history, is coming to be based on scientific data, and, as such, pseudohstory which directly contradicts that data or is not consistent with it should probably be considered to be pseudoscience as well. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
In general, subjects in the field of the humanities are not suitable for considerations as pseudoscience , and I have grave reservations against extending them even into the social sciences. . There may be some areas and topics in history that are essentially pure conspiracy theories and fringe, but in general we can deal with them without the need for the pseudoscience special treatment.
But one area of the humanities is totally inappropriate to be considered pseudoscience, ever, and that is religion. The nature of the evidence in this field sometimes does resemble convention historical thinking, but often does not. I personally have a very strong view that proving truth by personal revelation is never valid, and neither is proving truth by reference to the statements in sacred texts. People active in these areas from some traditions often feel the exact opposite, and it is not for WP to try to decide on this. Within the two religions I know, Judaism and Christianity, arguments about this question has been active on for thousands of years now, and is most unlikely to be settled --at least unless the traditionalists should somehow be correct, and the Last Judgment should intervene. What WP should never be doing is deciding on the status of religious questions. If there are multiple views, they must be presented, but the wording of an article should never imply that any one particular version is Correct. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia , of course, thought about this differently, and they had every right to. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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
The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles
and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace
to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content
and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On pages with related contentto something like
On secondary pages with related contentor change your defined term from "secondary" to "pages with related content". — Wug· a·po·des 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am under understanding that if the arbitration decision says "article" and not "page" it means "article" and not "page". Which makes perfect sense to me because for example talk pages should not be included in any case, and concerning Wikipedia namespace, the pages there do not obey the same policies as the articles, for example WP:V or WP:N do not apply to the same extent. It is of course up to ArbCom to modify the wording if they wish to do so.
To correct the original statement, GCB reverted a long-standing editor; VM first edit was a revert of a long-standing editor (although the edit they were reverting stood on the page for about two years); the other three reverts were indeed of a non-extended-confirmed editor.
What we also need is to clarify, similarly to PIA situation, is whether new accounts may edit articles which are not primarily related to antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces or even sentences related to antisemitism in Poland. My proposal would be to state that new accounts are not allowed to make any edits to any articles if the edit is related to antisemitism in Poland, but I believe it is not currently stated clearly in the remedy.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 05:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that I discussed the above interpretation of the remedy with VM after I blocked them (it was then called wikilawyering), and also in the ANI thred where it was completely ignored.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Ncmvocalist: I did warn VM before blocking, and we had a discussion, it is just the discussion did not happen to be productive.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In addition to the wording at ARBPIA, the WP:GS page which references the general 30/500 rule also says "content". Full text for completeness [18]:
Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce these remedies on article creations.
I bolded the parts where there's some difference. This means that the restriction on non-confirmed users editing "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" are EVEN MORE stringent than regular articles and article talk pages. One recurring problem since this amendment was put in place is of masses of sock puppet showing up to RfCs and brigading them. And making exceptions for RfCs does create a loophole - a friend of a banned user creates an RfC, then the banned user swarms the RfC with socks and it's really a lot of effort to file SPIs on all of them.
Of course, aligning the Poland-specific restriction with WP:GS and ARBPIA would also eliminate the sort of confusion that led to the recent drama. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ L235: and @ SoWhy: - the problem is that there has indeed been disruption by sock puppets outside of article space, either on WP boards (RSN, BLP) or via RfCs. I can compile a more exhaustive list from the past few months (or longer) but that will take time. But even very recently we've had an Icewhiz sock puppet VikingDrummer intervene in SPI to defend other sock puppets start RfC which was then flooded with other brand new accounts, use article talk pages to make personal attacks, vote in RfC. Another sockpuppet/blocked account User:Potugin, tried to use ANI to get their way and to agitate for sanctions, vote in an RfC, and again jumped into an ANI discussion to agitate for sanctions. This is just tip of the iceberg, just from the most recent past. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If you keep this loophole (restricting the prohibition only to articles) then I can 100% guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again. You leave a loophole, unscrupulous banned editors will exploit it. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what is "APL"? (and vandalism has always been a daily occurrence) Volunteer Marek 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what GCB said. The number of sock puppets in this area is so high that it's simply unreasonable to ask editors to constantly be filling out SPI reports (last one I filed took me 3 hours, which at my usual billing rates would be... way too much. You include the compensation for stress and we talking serious financial losses). The original restriction did work though! The disruption of articles themselves has gone way down. The area has calmed down. But unfortunately there is a kind of a "squeeze the balloon in one place, it gets bigger in another" effect here, as some of the sock puppetry has moved from articles to policy pages, noticeboards and talk pages (via RfCs in particular), as well as some AfDs (though I don't pay that much attention to that last category). Since the restriction was successful at solving (albeit partially) the initial problem, extending it - in line with how the restriction is usually interpreted and how it's applied in other topic areas - makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also what Zero0000 said. We know this works from other topic areas. So do it. (seriously we do so many things which don't work or we don't know if they work and here we have one that does work ... yet we're hesitant? Are we afraid of actually solving our problems?) Volunteer Marek 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: two of the three ARCAs in this TA had to do with persistent sock puppetry, right? That is where the disruption in this topic area is originating and an ArbCom case won’t do anything at all to resolve that since you can’t have a case with sock puppets as parties. What would help matters is streamlining this restriction to match up with similar ones in other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I do feel it necessary to note that Francois Robere’s comments regarding “review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action” constitute a WP:IBAN violation since one of the editors Ymblanter blocked is User:GizzyCatBella whom FR has an interaction ban with. For a very good reason. In fact, FR just came off a 48 hour block for violating that IBAN [19]. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that FR is agitating here for someone to overrule the consensus at ANI which was highly critical of Ymblanter’s block of GCB and myself. This is also the proper context in which to understand FR’s “suggestions” for a new (unnecessary) arb case. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I really want to encourage everyone to focus on the actual request for clarification - does the restriction cover non-article space, and if no, should it - rather than going off on tangents. In particular, there is little sense in arguing HERE about whether Ymblanter's blocks were legit or not. They weren't, but he's unblocked, however reluctantly, so as long as he doesn't keep trying to persue the matter, I'm happy to let this one go. Volunteer Marek 07:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
due to enormous sock puppet activity in these sectors. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboard discussions
This is a great example since it just happens as we speak. [20]. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user [21] but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Here you are again, that's the same talk page one day later [22]. This is occurring continuously, every day, on multiple articles. I can present a comprehensive list of talk pages, RfC, etc. affected by newly created accounts/proxy generated IP’s. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(Collapsed outdated below)
Extended content
|
---|
- GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC) |
Updating (as of August 27th) - I can see that this is on hold, but I'm just letting you know that distress from the brand new accounts in the topic area continues [23], [24]. Nothing changed. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC) See this also - [25] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zero talk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I'm reminded by looking at the last case that I have better things to do with my life than participate in this. Sorry, I withdraw my statements. Levivich 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Levi that there's no need to "dice it up." If unexperienced editors and socks are a major problem on these articles, they aren't likely to be a net positive in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as {{ Single-purpose account}}. {{ csp}}, {{ csm}}, {{ Afdnewuser}} and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here:
There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)
As for the scope of the remedy, I feel like it's little things like this that makes the general sanctions regimes appear complicated. This is the only one of three authorisations to limit to "mainspace". I think extending the scope for simplicity's sake is worth it alone, given that the covered content in other namespaces is almost certainly very low (both relatively and absolutely). The collateral damage will also be insignificant compared to the collateral damage already caused by having this restriction in mainspace.
I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Topic-wide editing restriction: Editors who do not meet __(the 500/30 criteria)__ ("the criteria") are prohibited from editing material in any namespace related to ____ ("the topic area").Enforcement: For articles (pages in mainspace) whose subject primarily falls in the topic area, this restriction may be enforced using WP:ECP page protection. On other pages, this restriction may be enforced using appropriate technical restrictions such as page protection and edit filters, taking care not to frustrate unrelated editing unless necessary. Edits made by editors who do not meet the criteria may be reverted, and editors may be blocked if they continue to violate this restriction after being made aware of it. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit-warring.Exceptions: The sole exceptions to this restriction are:
- Editors who do not meet the criteria may use the talk namespaces to post comments and make edit requests, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc.
If ArbCom wishes to maintain its relevancy and keep the Wikipedia community active and vibrant, it needs to stop dealing in minutae and start putting its foot down. APL is bleeding editors and admins, people complain about their blood pressure and mental health (!), vandalism is an almost daily occurrence, and you're arguing about namespaces? What are you, the IETF? There are so many things that you could do to fix this, and instead you're putting your finger in the dike. François Robere ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If by PIA4 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is meant, one reason I did not participate much was I was moving. Quite literally, we were physically moving during the time period. But a much bigger reason I didn't do much with it was the sheer ... tiredness that the entire topic area (of Polish/Jewish history both before and during the Holocaust and the reprecussions of that history in the modern era) elicits in me. It's a cesspit of battleground behavior and the previous attempts (including that case and all the "clarifications" since from arbcom) have failed miserably. About a year ago, it got so bad, I just totally removed ALL the articles in the topic area from my watchlist, except for the main Holocaust article. As I have many of the English sources that could be used in this area, the fact that I've been driven off from it by the behavior of most of the editors in the area should be quite telling. The reason why the arbcom case didn't work was that there was no way within the word limits to possibly present enough evidence to persuade any arbs, and it's not worth the bother quite honestly. Right now, what you have is basically a bunch of editors who blame all problems on Icewhiz while spending what seems like all their time battling the "hordes of sockpuppets" of Icewhiz as well as trying to eliminate all sign of letting any of his edits (or any edits that they think MIGHT be his or might be inspired by him or ... you get the picture) remain in the encyclopedia. Until folks wake up to the tag teaming and battleground behavior and grasp the nettle to eliminate the folks doing that behavior, it's never going to get better. The inability to recognize that there are a large number of sources that are so hopelessly biased that they shouldn't be used ... is just the icing on the cake. Ealdgyth ( talk) 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
François Robere, POV is fine, APL is fine, even TP is fine, I suppose. But TA? Comeon! It took me minutes of hard drinking to figure out it meant topic area. Now, granted I'm much slower than your average reviewer of the ARCA (praise be), but for the love of Cow Man, please just write "topic area" plainly. Jeez, I'm trying to be stealth over here. El_C 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This is just about the 500/30 rule
I understand wanting a standard, but if arbcom is going to use numbers to describe trustworthiness, then the numbers in question shouldn't be higher than the trust needed to vote each of you into arbcom:
I mean really, 500 mainspace edits are what's required to be an arbitrator. Are we really wanting to set the bar that high?
As for 30, arbcom voters need roughly 60 days. I wouldn't mind if this were moved up to that. - jc37 19:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I reiterate RGloucester's original comment here too as it is relevant to the incident and clarification. The remedy was clear on its own, but I think the "...exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..." line cited by Volunteer Marek was not unreasonable to cite as an exception either. Volunteer Marek was clear about this interpretation at the outset and that misunderstanding should have been addressed first by the admin. An unequivocal warning was not issued (as I said at the ANI) or more ideally, a discussion that was more conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. That is why the community would have reversed the block in any case. I have previously seen AE admin threaten to stop their work if an action isn't supported, but thankfully Ymblanter will not be one of them - in that they behave maturely, even in the face of serious health issues during admin actions, by swiftly taking steps to address the issues caused by the blocks. There is a separate matter raised by Piotrus which Ymblanter hasn't yet addressed at the ANI, but they propose to deal with that after this ARCA is completed.
That just leaves one separate issue here - the wisdom of this 'tailored' rule that came into effect last year. I actually share the reservations held for implementing the rule at all. In spite of this, if one concludes that a rule is required, @ Worm That Turned and SoWhy: I don't understand how last year's rule is somehow helpful in alleviating the actual reservations. If the restrictions exist for the article space, why should the participation be allowed on project pages that are not in the talk space? AFAIK, new legitimate accounts will start out in the main space. Additionally, if we take care to remember why DS (a type of GS) was streamlined by AC in the first place, I think we can appreciate why a streamlined 500/30 rule (another type of GS) is more effective in resolving the underlying issues sought to be addressed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The amentment says: methods noted in paragraph b)
- What is "paragraph b)"?
Lembit Staan (
talk) 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Go with Arbpia and 500/30, it works, more or less (if I was going to change 500/30 it would be upwards). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The motion needs proof-reading - it includes "Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b)
" but there is no paragraph marked "b)" (indeed, paragraphs are not individually identified in any way).
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the EC omnibus motion, I suggest the following copy edits:
− | + | New editors are restricted from editing directly in topic areas specified by the Committee. All IP editors and users who are not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] are prohibited from editing within the designated area. For primary articles related to the topic area, this prohibition is preferably enforced using extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. For secondary pages with related content, or for primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the extended confirmed restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list
|1=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods mentioned in the prior paragraph. This exception does not apply to any other namespace.
|2=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.{{pb}}For the purposes of this restriction, "primary" shall mean pages on which a majority of the content is within the conflict area. "Secondary" articles are those with less than a majority of their content related to the conflict area. Pages which mention the conflict area in mere passing, and whose content is not controversial, should ''not'' be considered to be within the scope of these restrictions.}}
|
I did not include the prohibition on requests for comments, requested moves, or other "internal project discussions" occurring on an article talk page, as I'm not clear on the practicality of allowing "constructive comments" in a non-RfC discussion but disallowing them for an RfC, in a discussion on an article title versus a requested move, and so forth. isaacl ( talk) 21:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I also urge the arbitrators not to use a term such as "ECP DS". Authorization for individual administrators to devise sanctions of their own invention is distinct from a defined page editing restriction. isaacl ( talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding WormThatTurned's suggestion to drop the terms "primary" and "secondary": I agree that when feasible, it's better to avoid having definitions to argue over. I do think, though, that it should be made clear that the editing restriction can apply to specific sections of an article and not only to entire articles. isaacl ( talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the "why 500/30" question above, the reality is that these topic areas see a lot more focused, determined WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT behavior than ArbCom elections. Yes, ArbCom elections are in theory more momentous, but topic areas that run along the fault line of real-world disputes are often what draws the sort of editors who engage in WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT behavior and which causes them to keep doing it. That means that topic areas like Antisemitism in Poland or ARBPIA are more likely to see disruptive attempts to evade any restriction, necessitating the longer period to make it harder to work around. And on a philosophical level, editors have less need to edit in a disputed topic area than they do to have a voice in selecting ArbCom - if a new editor desperately wants to edit ARBPIA articles, we can just ask them to edit elsewhere for a bit first; whereas when we cut an editor out of the process of electing ArbCom, we've disenfranchised them and that's that. Forbidding intermittent new editors who never reach 500/30 from voting for ArbCom would be more of a loss than banning them from ARBPIA. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
{{
subst:Gs/alert}}
use the abbreviation "Gs" despite explicitly only applying for community-sanctions). I don't think any further discussion of "mistakes" in usage is helpful though. I see your point that this has led to some confusion in general, however, I don't see any of that applying in this specific case where the language of the DS in question was clear and the question whether DS are a part of GS or something separate is not of any relevance afaics. Regards
So
Why 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)I have furthermore simply removed content from "editing content", as I believe that to be redundant. We already have a list of enumerated exceptions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's an alternative:
Old version
|
---|
|
I'm still not a huge fan of this approach. We would be better off codifying how all of our topic-wide restrictions should be construed. This draft, however, doesn't introduce new terminology and I think is more clear than the current text. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Now proposed below.
|
---|
In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:
|
Above is a second draft of the motion. This may be an improvement on the status quo, but our procedures need to codify even more: (keep in mind I'm writing these kind of off the cuff)
I don't want these other things to hold up improvements, but we should be conscious that we're not making other things worse when we try housekeeping motions like this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This sentence of the decision is the entire basis for the policy at WP:PROJSOCK. I find it vague and unhelpful. The remainder of the socking policy already forbids the abusive use of multiple accounts. As ArbCom is specifically not empowered to dictate policy, I propose this sentence be stricken from the decision and links to it removed from the the socking policy, which would allow the community to freely modify the policy as it sees fit without seeming to be "going against an ArbCom decision." This will not actually change the socking policy itself.
Do we really need to change a 14 year old case? The principles are all obiter dicta at best anyways. They may be persuasive as to what policy looked like at a time, but they flow from policy, not vice versa. The community could turn the see on the policy page into a see also or a contra, if it wanted to. The fact that a portion of the community uses the principle as a reason for not changing the policy is not a good argument for going around the community and changing the principle. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Principles in arbitration cases always reflect the state of policy at the time of the case. I don't think it is necessary for each change to a policy to trigger revisions to all affected principles for past cases. To make it easier for future reference, going forward it would be helpful if principles linked to specific versions of the appropriate policy pages. isaacl ( talk) 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that the community has already modified the Arbcom decision by adding the clause I have marked in bold. Internal discussions: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Discussions that directly affect a legitimate alternate account in project space are permitted.
So in my understanding, if an editor has an undisclosed alt account to edit articles on a topic they avoid with their main account, they can take part in AFD discussions with that account if one of the articles they edit with it has been nominated for deletion, and I think they can nominate that article for DYK, GA and FA, or file a request at RFPP or report a vandal at AIV. Providing of course they don't take part in any of those discussions with other unlinked accounts - but that is already covered in the policy. I think those exemptions are sensible and it would be useful if Arbcom was to confirm that it didn't intend to have the PrivateMusings decision taken sufficiently literally as to prevent an editor submitting an article for FA review etc.
That still leaves us with the hypothetical scenario where an editor submits an RFA after a snarky interaction with someone's alt account. Taking the current policy literally, the holder of the alt account would only be able to oppose with their main account, and not refer to the interaction with their alt account. If the editor stayed away from the RFA with their main account, but opposed with their sock using the rational "Oppose per [diff] this incident" that would be a blockable offense as they would be taking part in a project space discussion that only indirectly involved them. I don't see a good reason for such a bureaucratic restriction, and would be happy if Arbcom were to set aside that part of the Private Musings decision.
No one disputes that we need rules against undisclosed alt accounts being used for double voting. But I'm not seeing any advantage in the extra bureaucracy of stopping alt accounts from participating in project space, and there are some downsides, especially if the PrivateMusings decision were taken literally, rather than as now, radically reinterpreted.
I'm neutral on whether the arbs should enact the actual proposal, but should they choose not to, a clear-cut statement that they have no objection to the Community re-writing the policy and that this principle should not be viewed as preventing that would be an alternate means of settling the concern Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Note that the footnote was removed by Jehochman with this edit yesterday. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Benevolent human at 16:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
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
Should ARBPIA apply to allegations of whether Ilhan Omar invoked anti-Semitic canards when discussing Jewish Americans? The controversy stems from Ilhan Omar allegedly saying that Jewish Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. My view was: Dual loyalty implies people are doing nice things for Israel since they're loyal to Israel, but the US has, in part due to AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, collaboration on Iran issues, favorable trade arrangements, technology development, etc. My sense for the other view is that the Israeli-Arab conflict tends to also be mentioned tangentially in some but not all articles that discuss this incident, but articles often provide digressions and context aside from discussing the primary manner of hand. Here is a representative article: [2]
Response to Nishidani: this came up in the context of discussing whether to add a new sentence to the lead, not in the context of the existing sections (which might not have the proper heading in any case).
Response to Muboshgu: Yes, Omar sometimes says things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict too at other times and in other statements. But not everything related to Israel is about its conflicts with its neighbors.
Response to Selfstudier: this is the conversation where we decided to take it here User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Invalid_RfC_closure?. We've been disputing this issue for weeks (for example, several of the closed RfCs on Talk:Ilhan Omar.
Response to The Four Deuces: I have a great deal of respect for you, so I was sad to see how misleading your statement was. The reinsertion after the failed RfC for AOC took into account the points made in the RfC and incorporated it (see here). I subsequently immediately let the issue drop and took a break after the temperature of the conversation got too high. I've consistently followed all Wikipedia policies and ARBCOM rulings. There's this recurrent narrative that keeps being brought up that because I opened three RfCs, I'm ignoring previous RfCs. The reality the first two RfCs were not allowed to come to conclusion because of disputes over the scope of ARBPIA. After the first two RfCs were disrupted, I waited until I was extended confirmed before reopening the present one to circumvent the issue, but now other editors who are trying to participate are being harassed that they can't because of ARBPIA. Which is what brought us here today. (Also seems manipulative to encourage me to open this ARBCOM request on your talk page, and then once I do so ask for sanctions be put against me there, but oh well.)
Response to Nableezy: Here's a counterexample: User_talk:Polymath03. I did continue Recent Change Patrol activities after I reached 500 edits.
Response to NightHeron: [3]
Response to Barkeep49: We tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus: Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Above_RfC_and_ARBPIA. Then I tried to open an RfC, but other editors closed it and told me I had to come here: [4] Benevolent human ( talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Black Kite: Although I've had a minority opinion, that itself isn't a violation of policy. I believe that I've followed the letter and spirit of all relevant policies and ARBCOM rulings to the best of my ability and have respected consensus when it has been established through proper procedures. If a consensus can be binding before a formal procedure like an RfC is complete, then I'm misunderstanding something, which is possible. My understanding of how things worked was that editors who happened to be at a page discussed amongst themselves, and if they couldn't come to a compromise, they then invoked a process like this to get the wider community to weigh in.
Beyond my Ken: My understanding was that only _one_ RfC failed. The first two RfCs were cancelled for alleged procedural reasons before they were allowed to start. I'll admit that because the third RfC has now failed, this entire question might now be moot. Given that the RfC has now failed, this probably shouldn't be brought up for another RfC for at least a year. In my view, the consensus was not established until this recent RfC was closed.
Response to JayBeeEll: I did follow up on our conversation by asking on ANI, but brought it here when nobody there responded.
Even narrowly construed, I believe ARBPIA4 applies. It's clear from Bh's comments that they want the lead to summarize at least two 2019 Omar controversies. In the first, Omar's "Benjamins" tweet, the context was possible sanction of Omar and Rashida Tlaib for their support of the BDS movement. The second, in which Omar was accused of using the dual-loyalty anti-semitic canard, began as a talk by Omar and Tlaib. Omar's comments were about the I-P conflict. Bh is right that it's possible to support or criticize Israel for things that have nothing to do with Arabs or Palestine, but all of the incidents motivating this RfC are inextricably tied to the conflict ARBPIA4 covers. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Just in case it is not clear, this concerns a large section with three subdivisions at Ilhan Omar. As the main section title itself declares, these paragraphs all deal with the I/P conflict. Nishidani ( talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Benevolent human references the dual loyalty canard, which is directly referencing Israel. The Israel-Palestine issue is to be "broadly construed", so arguing that dual loyalty references American Jews and not Israel is an absurd argument to make. With Omar's loud support of BDS, there is no separating out the I-P issue from Omar on issues that pertain more directly to American Jews. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I commented at that talk page that, at a minimum, "broadly construed" covers the case and it may not even need that particular caveat for efficacy. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This came here too quickly, more discussion should have taken place at the talk page and I think consensus would have come about fairly quickly in the normal course. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Humph, seems more going on here than I was aware of, the initial filing now does not appear as a standalone attempt to work something out but instead a continuation of something prior. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Benevolent human, formerly User:Pretzel butterfly, has created three unsuccessful RfCs about inclusion of accusations of anti-Semitism against Ilhan Omar since June 1 2021: Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC on anti-Semitism accusations in lead [20:21, 1 June 2021] [5], Talk:Ilhan Omar#New information [02:25, 12 June 2021] [6] and Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC [21:22, 12 June 2021]. [7] At last count the vote for the third RfC, which is still open, stands at 17-3 against.
Benevolent human previously tried to include accusations of anti-Semitism against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#AOC's disputes with Jewish groups [18:33, 18 December 2020] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#RfC about AOC's disputes with Jewish organizations [22:29, 6 January 2021] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#AOC and Israel. [14:32, 17 April 2021] After failing in the RfC, Pretzel Butterfly reinserted the disputed text. See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#Yet again [00:52, 11 January 2021]. Omar and AOC are close allies in the U.S. Congress.
This editor is clearly disruptive, arguing their views long after it was clear they had no support. I recommend a topic ban for U.S. politics. Under their previous account, I informed the editor of American politics AE [22:43, 10 January 2021]. [8] (While I used the previous date of 1932 - it's now 1992 - I think the notice was valid.)
TFD ( talk) 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers content disputes, but the issue here was whether the 500/30 Rule, prohibiting new editors from editing Palestine-Israel articles, applied, which is not a content issue. TFD ( talk) 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I really don't see how this is remotely ripe for Arbcom, even as a clarification request. If any action is considered here, it should be a topic ban for Benevolent human, and extended confirmed should be revoked for gaming by welcoming many editors who made a handful of edits, but neither of those require arbcom intervention. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 18:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The only part of this that could conceivably use ArbCom weighing in on is what are the dispute resolution routes for this? Would this be like some other arbitration enforcement where a single admin can make a call but a consensus of admins would be needed to overrule it? I do find the opening editor's zealousness on this topic to be somewhere between mildly disruptive to blatantly tendentious, and the gaming of EC status is also something that ArbCom ruling about would be helpful as prior editors who I thought were gaming the system by repeatedly making tiny edits at such a rapid clip to get past the barrier and then shortly after reverting to normal editing (eg adding whitspace between an infobox and the lead and then removing whitespace between the infobox and the lead) or welcoming editors at a rate of about 4 per minute, despite never having welcomed an editor before needing to reach EC status to start another RFC within the topic area. Those things I think could use ArbCom speaking about. Whether or not this obviously related subject is related is not one of the things that really need your attention though. nableezy - 19:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It shouldn't be necessary for ArbCom to clarify what's already completely clear to everyone except for one user. Talk:Ilhan Omar prominently displays a detailed warning that certain parts of the article are subject to ARBPIA. This obviously means the parts dealing with controversies over Omar's statements on US support for Israel in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Several editors explained to Bh the applicability of ARBPIA, see [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], but Bh insists that all of us are wrong. The real issue seems to be Bh's WP:IDHT. NightHeron ( talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at this article from an admin point of view, I would be looking at the two editors who have persistently tried to insert negative content into this BLP, those two being
User:Benevolent human and
User:Toa_Nidhiki05.
Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC) This is probably a separate issue, so striking.
Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This request is beyond ludicrous. Three RfCs haven't gone BH's way, so they come here to try and game the system and do an end-run around obvious community consensus. There should be no pussyfooting around this, BH needs to be topic banned from Omar and AOC, perhaps the entire subject of antisemitism. They are clearly disruptive. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I [procedurally, but also with a rationale based on strength of arguments and the fact it was snowing...] closed the first RfC (having no prior involvement on that page, and nothing significant since) after having determined that Omar's comments and position about Israel and its actions (in the context of the Arab-Israel conflict) are obviously, "broadly construed", "related to the Arab-Israeli" conflict. BH challenged this and I explained on their talk page. I don't think there's too much grounds for clarification, except maybe re-affirming that "broadly construed" means "when in doubt, yes". RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the majority of editors above that this clearly falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and with a number of editors who don't even think the qualifier "broadly construed" is necessary to see that this is the case. I told Benevolent human as much back on June 1. I am disappointed to see that they've continued pushing the issue, as well as trying to game the 500-edit limitation. -- JBL ( talk) 10:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments [here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus. However, it looks to me like everyone except for you thinks this is covered by the ARBPIA area of conflict; your disagreement alone isn't enough to say the community
couldn't come to a consensus. That's not how consensus on Wikipedia works. I would decline this clarification request without action. @ Nableezy: The way it works is that if an admin actually takes an arbitration enforcement action on the basis that the dispute is covered by ARBPIA, then that action is presumed to be correct unless it is reversed on appeal, per note 4 of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Modifications by administrators. However, there may not have been an explicit AE action here. KevinL ( alt of L235 · t · c) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ritchie333 at 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
In August 2019, I was subject to an indefinite interaction ban with the user “Praxidicae”. The announcement of the ban is here. Since then I was blocked twice on 9 August and 19 October 2019. I did not appeal the first block as I was taking an extended leave of absence when it was placed. I appealed the second block successfully; the appeal is here.
During this period, I was having issues with off-wiki events unrelated to Wikipedia (which Arbcom have been informed of), which caused me to lash out at people. I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again. Administrators should be held to a high level of civility and accountability, and the best way I can illustrate that is to lead by example. I do not foresee incidents like these happening again. I make no comments on the views of others in the above threads, and would invite you to read them and judge for yourself.
The principal reason for reviewing the ban is I would like to be able to cite these events as an example in the ongoing discussions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct. In particular, it would be a useful example to highlight how administrators can and should be sanctioned, and how harassment-based sanctions must be placed carefully otherwise they may reduce the community’s trust in how they are handled. As a secondary reason, it would be helpful to delete articles this user tags as {{
db-copyvio}}
, which I can't see being problematic.
As a secondary choice, and an alternative to vacating the ban, I have proposed an alternative to tighten the restriction to just replies in discussions. However, even if the ban is revoked entirely, I do not intend to directly interact or converse with the other user, and that will continue to be the case.
It has been drawn to my attention that a further reason for vacating the ban would be it would allow Praxidicae to have a reasonable run at Request for Adminship. I have no opinion on this, and should it occur, I will recuse from the RfA and not comment on it; in a similar manner, I recused from !voting at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2.
I have reviewed this appeal with Arbcom, who support posting it here. For obvious reasons, I have not notified the other party directly (does this violate an interaction ban?) and would be helpful if a clerk or other editor could do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I can’t make a meaningful statement as I have a lot going on in real life that takes precedence and I do not have access to a computer for the foreseeable future. I do however oppose any loosening of this restriction or any changes given the multiple violations and I’m confused by the rfa statement as this iban doesn’t preclude me from running, though I have no desire to ever rfa on English Wikipedia so it’s a non starter. I don’t have the mental bandwidth to say or deal with this beyond this brief statement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea - I don't believe Ritchie has ever really understood how seriously troubling his behaviour was in relation to Praxidicae and as a result, I'm not entirely convinced they're genuinely well placed to avoid repeating such behaviour - though of course a repetition of such behaviour this time around might result in more stricter sanction, an outcome both justifiable and regrettable in equal measure. That being the case, I generally support retaining the IBAN as previously imposed.
I also find myself being incredibly puzzled by the mention of RfA - if Ritchie doesn't intend to take part in any RfA concerning Praxidicae, why would they need the interaction ban removed, what would they intend to say that is prevented by an interaction ban but which isn't involvement in the RfA itself ? I know Ritchie has tried to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper at RfA, so I'm particularly curious as to why he thinks he needs the IBAN lifted in relation to any Praxidicae RfA.
-- Nick ( talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Nick, I read Ritchie's statement as saying that they didn't want the interaction ban being a barrier to Praxidicae running for admin rather than some sort of gatekeeper role. Whether that would work is a different matter, however, as memories are long at RfA. Ritchie raises an interesting point in that they want to use their case to inform discussions about the proposed UCOC, where it may be relevant. Does Praxidicae ( talk · contribs) (or anyone else involved in the case) have a problem with discussing it in the context of the UCOC? If not, could it be possible to lift the interaction ban just for this purpose? Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Seems a sensible request. To address Nicks "analyses": Ritchie's no more a gatekeeper than most other RfA regs – he's not one of the most effective opposers. As per Valeree, Ritchie's more of a door opener at RfA – he likes to find people to nominate & support their ticket, as do several other admins. In a small way, requesting this iban lift helps open the RfA door for Praxidicae, should she be interested in that. Ritchie's well liked, perhaps especially by the dozen or so RfA regs that have met him in person (he rolled 16 on Charisma). While Ritchie now views his past interactions with Prax as a mistake, from other perspectives they were far from "seriously troubling". They could be seen as reasonable pro newbie balancing of Prax's quite high quality control standards. Some may see the (sort of) 1-way iBan as an injustice and be less likely to oppose if it's lifted. (To be clear we're probably only talking about 1-4 opposes here, and none would be likely to explicitly say they were opposing due to the Ritchie iban. Or maybe some are seeing it as a 2 way ban & hence a sanction against Prax, & again a lift could possibly avoid 1-2 potential RfA opposers) Other than the reasons Ritchies gave, lifting the iban could avoid situations like the 2nd block which was technically correctly but judged by the community as unnecessary. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I like and respect both Ritchie and Prax, and found Ritchie's behavior at the time puzzling and disappointing. I believe him when he says the circumstances that led to that have changed.
If I understand right, there are three main reasons to reduce/remove:
My lingering concerns are threefold:
In general, depending on how Prax responds, I think the ArbCom should be open to the idea of removing or relaxing the iban, but maybe with an unofficial agreement (not written down somewhere as an Official Sanction) between two good faith editors:
Maybe that's too complicated, I don't know. If this does pass, I hope it does some good for both editors to note that someone (me) who's judgement I think is thought well of by both parties, believes that the other editor is generally a good egg, and that they can be trusted to abide by something informally agree to. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Speaking as a Meta-Wiki administrator and someone involved in UCoC development, the vast majority of UCoC discussions and consultations occur on Meta-Wiki, with the exception of a handful of local language consultations, such as this. I am not sure about the English Wikipedia's policy as it relates to Arbitration Committee sanctions and their applicability to actions on other Wikimedia projects; generally, if the IBAN applies solely to the English Wikipedia, it would not significantly hinder Ritchie's ability to participate in UCOC discussions in the capacity that they described. Regards, Vermont ( talk) 17:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel that the outcome of the amendment request should be determined by a desire to use this situation as an example in code of conduct discussions. Other editors can bring it up.
I disagree with setting conditions that limit what can be said in code of conduct discussions. If the commenter cannot speak candidly, it's harder to weigh the significance of the example of admin sanctions being raised. isaacl ( talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
No comment on the request itself, and it predates my time, but every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true
I suspect that may have been my comment at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vami IV claiming that admins don't get blocked unilaterally by another admin, and as a counter-example I was given a link to Ritchie being blocked by an arb enforcing this IBAN.
So yes, I suppose an admin was technically blocked for something (albeit I'm not sure arbitration enforcement of an ArbCom remedy counts). One needn't look further than Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Ritchie333_and_Praxidicae to see exactly what the cost was of sanctioning an admin. That is, 37,923 words (253,158 characters) of hot air. Given this, it's debatable whether this is a good example to prove "admins aren't above the law". ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem with relaxing the ban to only include replying to each other in discussions, is that both editors are active in speedy deletions, with Praxidicae looking to rid Wikipedia of spam and COI and Ritchie coming from the opposite end of wanting to rescue articles. The October 2019 block of Ritchie came about when he deleted the copyvio and rebooted an article that Praxidicae had tagged for deletion. Whether that counted as "undoing each other's edits" as described in
WP:IBAN was much debated at
User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_103. In that discussion
Premeditated Chaos said one of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them
and
AmandaNP said, it seems like Ritchie is stalking Praxidicae's contributions with the amount of time between edits and frequency of this occurring. This is directly prohibited in our harassment policy and is why the IBan was enforced here.
Ritchie has denied doing this, but I think it would be wise for him to continue to avoid removing, addressing or otherwise involving himself at all with any of Praxidicae's CSD tags if the ban is loosened.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader: I'm just chiming in here to note that, looking at the discussion, most of the comments after Ritchie's Iban was imposed seemed to mainly be due to heightened tensions after the Fram case, and people dissatisfied with a decision based on private evidence, not just because of an admin being sanctioned. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 00:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Another comment: Isn't this an appeal of a 2-way interaction ban, and not of a one-way ban? I've seen a couple of people refer to this as a one-way Iban appeal, but isn't the interaction ban 2-way? Jackattack1597 ( talk) 22:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the siteand that it's up to them they can't
air their concerns, as I am reasonable. Further, are you now saying that you "
have falsely been accused of harassment" (since you say
that's a fair description of what's happened to me... I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else. So have the grounds of appeal shifted this being something for which you apologised for in your opening statement (indeed, profusely) to something which should never have happened and was completely unfair to you. These are two very different things. In the first case, there is an acceptance of culpability but a promise the same behaviour won't happen again; in the second, there's pushback against the original premise and a concomitant implication of your own blamelessness. —— Serial 11:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement irrelevant to the merits of the amendment request (clerk action). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've not had much to do with this matter but happen to notice a fresh example which indicates that the root cause issue here is overzealous tagging by Praxidicae. The topic in question is Mrs Hinch – a famous cleaner, influencer and successful author. The recent timeline is:
The editors who tried to delete this seemed quite out of step with the general consensus and so it is they that should pull their horns in. The use of G11 seemed quite excessive and such tagging will naturally generate some pushback. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC) |
Andrew Davidson, In as much as I have respect for you and your dedication to the collaborative project I am nonplus that you mention Praxi in the same sentence where the word “Over zealous” is used, she sets a higher bar, but overzealous? I don’t believe this and furthermore I believe that is rude & considering to them and their body of work. Per your example above, if Praxi moved the article to Draftspace & the editor unilaterally moves it back to mainspace without a dialogue of any sort, that is wrong, The editor should have submitted it via AFC instead of move-war. As for Your second point, if the article is promotional in nature then pray tell why shouldn’t it be G11 tagged? Thirdly, an admin declining a G11 request is immaterial. Lastly when an article has been moved to draft and the same editor moves back to mainspace that is move warring like I earlier stated and sending the article to AFD is usually the best course of action. Celestina007 ( talk) 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@ BDD: FWIW I can think of two cases from the past year wherein an editor was blocked for violating an IBAN for asking about the IBAN (specifically for seeking to turn a one-way into a two-way). Both were overturned by the community on appeal, but a subsequent effort (by me) to codify that into policy did not gain consensus. Also, I started an RFC that would have allowed RFA candidates to discuss an IBAN during an RFA (to answer questions about it), and that didn't gain consensus, either. Finally, there was a recent appeal of an 18-month-old IBAN that had not been violated, and the appeal did not gain consensus because one party didn't agree to it. A subsequent village pump thread to put an expiration date on IBANs (not by me) was snow opposed. I assume links aren't necessary, but my point is: there is definitely enforcement of IBANs that is overzealous in my view but that appears to be supported by the community nevertheless (so I think Ritchie's risk of getting into trouble just for discussing the IBAN is non-trivial), and it appears the community doesn't want one-way IBANs lifted without the agreement of both parties (and Prax doesn't agree here). I don't know if the IBAN here should be lifted or not (I don't know the details of this case) but I think the concerns all around are reasonable. IBANs are a tricky problem in my view, and my sense is that the community takes them very seriously and enforces them very strictly. Levivich 16:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the history of how the ban has been enforced I can fully understand why Ritchie is concerned about mentioning the ban at all in the UCOC discussions. Given that experienced editors in good standing have here expressed different views about whether it would or would not be a violation then this request seems all the more sensible. The adage that it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission very much does not hold true for Wikipedia editors with active sanctions.
I have my own issues regarding Prax (entirely off-topic here) and I know Ritchie from meetups (back when such things wouldn't kill us) so I'm not going to comment on the merits or otherwise or removing the ban. If it is not removed or loosened then it seems to me that Ritchie's primary desire could be facilitated by a clarification/amendment explicitly stating that they may comment about the IBAN and their experiences of it and its enforcement in discussions about dispute resolution processes, experiences, etc. as long as any references to Prax are avoided where possible and kept to the absolute minimum where it isn't. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the
interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.with
RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc.
In several ARBPIA RMs, most recently at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, many non-500/30 editors have commented in RMs, unaware that the restriction applies to those discussions. ArbCom seemed to clarify (by majority, although not without dissent) in this ARCA that RMs are included in that provision, but didn't amend the actual remedy with their clarification. It's not particularly convenient for editors to have to link to and explain Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) (an ARCA archive) every time a comment is struck and a non-500/30 user is confused by, or objects to, the striking. Requesting that the section be amended, as it was in this amendment, so that it's clearer for users, and so that Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement can be amended with the new wording as well.
I think it would also help if Template:Requested move/dated was amended to include a reminder of the restriction on ARBPIA4 pages. (edit: I've cooked up something for this part at Template_talk:Requested_move#Automatic_notice_of_restrictions_on_ARBPIA_pages)
The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages.My reading was that editing on talk pages is already caught within the provision, and then is exempted below. I'm not sure the alternate interpretation works; if editing on talk pages is already not part of the prohibition (
are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict), then what would be the point of adding it to
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:? There'd be no need to exempt something that is already not prohibited. The wording of B(1) seems to support this interpretation, since it suggests the exemption doesn't apply to other namespaces (hence implying that the prohibition does already apply to non-article content). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This happens frequently, non ec's even open Afd's in the topic area ( Diff]. The problem is mainly although not exclusively with new editors that wander into the topic area without a clear idea of what's involved and don't really pay attention to the notices. I think it might continue to occur even if the notices and whatnot were all clarified, which they anyway should be. Maybe new editors need a very clear heads up about AP, IP and the rest. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
In practice, an RM isn't much different to an RFC (and can be just as fraught) so if a non-ec can't participate in an RFC (they can't) then they should not be able to participate in an RM either. They can discuss it (or an RFC) on the talk page, sure, why not, just not formally participate or "vote". Selfstudier ( talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I have to confess that I find this situation baffling. There is a procedure that experienced editors understand, or thought they did, with a theoretical hole in it, namely RMs and I guess AfDs as well, because it says "etc". Instead of filling in the hole and making things easier to explain (to inexperienced editors) we seem instead to want to make the hole(s) official, to make the explanations even more complicated and to allow once more the easy access of socks to formal discussions. An AfD is certainly not an edit request and I think it is better to think of an RM as an RFC about the title of an article. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
What I would want to say if it were as easy as that is something like "Non ec's cannot participate in formal discussions in IP area" where "formal discussions" means anything with a "vote", wherever it is. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
What is the difference between RFC and RM. Though both process are not decided by majority but by strength of arguments still if there are many proponents of certain view ussally it will be decided accordingly. The provision meant to disallow socks to influence on such process so there is no logic to allow it in AFD but not in RFC which both happen on talk page -- Shrike ( talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
An RM is essentially just a type of RfC and there is no logic to having different rules about who can contribute to them. The previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority, and soon afterwards a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.
" If the Committee wishes to add RM after RfC in the body of the remedy, fine, otherwise I don't see the case for any changes.
On the matter of advising editors of the rules, things are suboptimal. No ordinary editor should ever have to search ARCA. The solution is to keep Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles always up to date with all and only the current rules on display and all other stuff relegated to wikilinks.
To those who want to reverse the previous decision about RMs, you should know that RMs are frequently the most hotly debated issues on ARBPIA talk pages. What will happen if the restriction is lifted is that RMs will return to the Wild West where a lot of IPs and new accounts show up and !vote as a block. I'm confident that that is often the result of off-wiki canvassing. Although closers can choose to ignore some of the chaff, why should they have to? Non-ec people who want to comment can do so outside the boundaries of the formal RM. Zero talk 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. as an non-autoconfirmed user, i must have objectional argument about the amendment request. I think the previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority about, and a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.
" I not involved in the motion but i recognized that it is more applicable. But for me, the decision is not enough. I also propose an amendment to the ARBIPA4 to includes a page move ban topic-wide for all contents related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, any users, even EC users, cannot move any ARBIPA page or contents unless there is strong and reasonable consensus about it because all page moves initiative by EC users is too bad so only administrators can move any contents related to the Arab-Israeli page, which in other words, page move right by non-administrator for the topic is revoked. (Please read the concern on
archival talk page).
182.1.13.41 (
talk) 06:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely don't see any reason for the current discretionary sanctions page putting a clarification in a note. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.Footnote: In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee
clarified that
requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy.
needs to be changed. Either A) get rid of the {{
refn}} and integrate it directly into the text: "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc." (which if it weren't an ArbCom page I'd suggest somebody boldly change it) or B) remove the footnote (if for some odd reason RMs are not "internal project discussions"). Of course I'm for option A)
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Addressing the problem of widespread misuse of sockpuppet accounts was a major driver behind ARBPIA4, a major element of that misuse being to stack consensus-establishing discussions. In theory, consesus is supposed to be established by the quality of arguments; in practice, it often comes down to a vote in all but name. Sockpuppet accounts were being used to weigh the scales. The 500/30 rule was introduced to make life more difficult for sockmasters (though part of its effectiveness depends on the assiduous identification and blocking of sock accounts). If I remember correctly, the allowing of commenting on affected talkpages by non-EC editors was a later concession. I think that the opening up of any process which depends on the establishment of consensus, including RMs, should be given very careful thought. In terms of explaining to non-EC editors why their comments have been struck from consensus-establishing discussions, I'm puzzled why just suppying a link to the ARBPIA General Sanction and pointing out the 500/30 restriction wouldn't, in most cases, be sufficient. ← ZScarpia 11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
<@ Bradv:> With regard to what constitutes content, see the ARBPIA4 definition of the "area of conflict", which, at least to me, seems to imply that "content" includes more than what is contained in articles themselves:
b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
A discussion of the wording to adopt was carried out during the ARBPIA workshop stage here, with the wording proposed by @ AGK: being adopted.
← ZScarpia 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to codify previous clarifications and make technical improvements, Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions") is amended:
"editing content within the area of conflict"with
"editing within the area of conflict";
"other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc."with
"other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, requested move discussions, etc."; and
"edits made to content within the area of conflict"with
"edits made within the area of conflict".
Editors who are not eligible ... may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.(emphasis added). Later it is clarified that
This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..., which to me means anything not on the talk page (e.g. WP-space, primarily). An RM is a form of edit request (though one that requires consensus) that falls within the first part of 5.b.1 and not in the second. Primefac ( talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "other internal project discussions"
, as used in
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include
requested moves.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This amendment request is closed without action.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Shibbolethink at 01:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
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
Does the ArbCom decision on COVID-19 affect Gain-of-function research? There has recently been an increase in talk page activity and some off-site canvassing about this article and how it relates to certain COVID-19 conspiracy theories (namely that the virus was generated using bioengineering in a laboratory (usually suggested to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It may soon become helpful to request application of these sanctions if SPAs show up or if the page becomes more disrupted, so I ask: Do the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions apply to this article? Thanks.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not 100% clear on who would be a relevant party to this clarification request, if anyone. I am happy to include or notify any other users as requested. I added a notification over at the talk page in question just to be safe [17]. Thank you.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course Gain-of-function research is part of the speculation regarding Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I'll watch the article for a while and may be able to help as an uninvolved administrator but am busy at the moment. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
At present, the interest in gain of function research --at least on WP-- is mostly because of the implications for the origin of COVID, bu the topic is much broader, and arguments about the appropriateness of this type of study were raised long before Covid. There could perfectly well (& in my opinion should) be an article on the subject not specifically discussing Covid, but giving a link to a breakout page where that possible example would be discussed. Applying DS here would discourage proper use of the page for the general topic.
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
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
Are the sanctions from WP:ARBPS applicable to pseudohistory? tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@ BDD: The generic dispute is how fundamentalist believers want to state their own view of the Bible and of the history of Christianity in the voice of Wikipedia, i.e. against rendering the views of mainstream Bible scholars, which fundamentalists consider them to be heretical. But it also covers nationalist pseudohistory (e.g. Dacianism). tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It should be considered that, more and more, the study of history, especially ancient history, is coming to be based on scientific data, and, as such, pseudohstory which directly contradicts that data or is not consistent with it should probably be considered to be pseudoscience as well. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
In general, subjects in the field of the humanities are not suitable for considerations as pseudoscience , and I have grave reservations against extending them even into the social sciences. . There may be some areas and topics in history that are essentially pure conspiracy theories and fringe, but in general we can deal with them without the need for the pseudoscience special treatment.
But one area of the humanities is totally inappropriate to be considered pseudoscience, ever, and that is religion. The nature of the evidence in this field sometimes does resemble convention historical thinking, but often does not. I personally have a very strong view that proving truth by personal revelation is never valid, and neither is proving truth by reference to the statements in sacred texts. People active in these areas from some traditions often feel the exact opposite, and it is not for WP to try to decide on this. Within the two religions I know, Judaism and Christianity, arguments about this question has been active on for thousands of years now, and is most unlikely to be settled --at least unless the traditionalists should somehow be correct, and the Last Judgment should intervene. What WP should never be doing is deciding on the status of religious questions. If there are multiple views, they must be presented, but the wording of an article should never imply that any one particular version is Correct. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia , of course, thought about this differently, and they had every right to. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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
The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles
and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace
to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content
and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On pages with related contentto something like
On secondary pages with related contentor change your defined term from "secondary" to "pages with related content". — Wug· a·po·des 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I am under understanding that if the arbitration decision says "article" and not "page" it means "article" and not "page". Which makes perfect sense to me because for example talk pages should not be included in any case, and concerning Wikipedia namespace, the pages there do not obey the same policies as the articles, for example WP:V or WP:N do not apply to the same extent. It is of course up to ArbCom to modify the wording if they wish to do so.
To correct the original statement, GCB reverted a long-standing editor; VM first edit was a revert of a long-standing editor (although the edit they were reverting stood on the page for about two years); the other three reverts were indeed of a non-extended-confirmed editor.
What we also need is to clarify, similarly to PIA situation, is whether new accounts may edit articles which are not primarily related to antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces or even sentences related to antisemitism in Poland. My proposal would be to state that new accounts are not allowed to make any edits to any articles if the edit is related to antisemitism in Poland, but I believe it is not currently stated clearly in the remedy.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 05:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Note that I discussed the above interpretation of the remedy with VM after I blocked them (it was then called wikilawyering), and also in the ANI thred where it was completely ignored.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Ncmvocalist: I did warn VM before blocking, and we had a discussion, it is just the discussion did not happen to be productive.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
In addition to the wording at ARBPIA, the WP:GS page which references the general 30/500 rule also says "content". Full text for completeness [18]:
Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce these remedies on article creations.
I bolded the parts where there's some difference. This means that the restriction on non-confirmed users editing "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" are EVEN MORE stringent than regular articles and article talk pages. One recurring problem since this amendment was put in place is of masses of sock puppet showing up to RfCs and brigading them. And making exceptions for RfCs does create a loophole - a friend of a banned user creates an RfC, then the banned user swarms the RfC with socks and it's really a lot of effort to file SPIs on all of them.
Of course, aligning the Poland-specific restriction with WP:GS and ARBPIA would also eliminate the sort of confusion that led to the recent drama. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ L235: and @ SoWhy: - the problem is that there has indeed been disruption by sock puppets outside of article space, either on WP boards (RSN, BLP) or via RfCs. I can compile a more exhaustive list from the past few months (or longer) but that will take time. But even very recently we've had an Icewhiz sock puppet VikingDrummer intervene in SPI to defend other sock puppets start RfC which was then flooded with other brand new accounts, use article talk pages to make personal attacks, vote in RfC. Another sockpuppet/blocked account User:Potugin, tried to use ANI to get their way and to agitate for sanctions, vote in an RfC, and again jumped into an ANI discussion to agitate for sanctions. This is just tip of the iceberg, just from the most recent past. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If you keep this loophole (restricting the prohibition only to articles) then I can 100% guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again. You leave a loophole, unscrupulous banned editors will exploit it. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what is "APL"? (and vandalism has always been a daily occurrence) Volunteer Marek 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, what GCB said. The number of sock puppets in this area is so high that it's simply unreasonable to ask editors to constantly be filling out SPI reports (last one I filed took me 3 hours, which at my usual billing rates would be... way too much. You include the compensation for stress and we talking serious financial losses). The original restriction did work though! The disruption of articles themselves has gone way down. The area has calmed down. But unfortunately there is a kind of a "squeeze the balloon in one place, it gets bigger in another" effect here, as some of the sock puppetry has moved from articles to policy pages, noticeboards and talk pages (via RfCs in particular), as well as some AfDs (though I don't pay that much attention to that last category). Since the restriction was successful at solving (albeit partially) the initial problem, extending it - in line with how the restriction is usually interpreted and how it's applied in other topic areas - makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also what Zero0000 said. We know this works from other topic areas. So do it. (seriously we do so many things which don't work or we don't know if they work and here we have one that does work ... yet we're hesitant? Are we afraid of actually solving our problems?) Volunteer Marek 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: two of the three ARCAs in this TA had to do with persistent sock puppetry, right? That is where the disruption in this topic area is originating and an ArbCom case won’t do anything at all to resolve that since you can’t have a case with sock puppets as parties. What would help matters is streamlining this restriction to match up with similar ones in other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I do feel it necessary to note that Francois Robere’s comments regarding “review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action” constitute a WP:IBAN violation since one of the editors Ymblanter blocked is User:GizzyCatBella whom FR has an interaction ban with. For a very good reason. In fact, FR just came off a 48 hour block for violating that IBAN [19]. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that FR is agitating here for someone to overrule the consensus at ANI which was highly critical of Ymblanter’s block of GCB and myself. This is also the proper context in which to understand FR’s “suggestions” for a new (unnecessary) arb case. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I really want to encourage everyone to focus on the actual request for clarification - does the restriction cover non-article space, and if no, should it - rather than going off on tangents. In particular, there is little sense in arguing HERE about whether Ymblanter's blocks were legit or not. They weren't, but he's unblocked, however reluctantly, so as long as he doesn't keep trying to persue the matter, I'm happy to let this one go. Volunteer Marek 07:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
due to enormous sock puppet activity in these sectors. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboard discussions
This is a great example since it just happens as we speak. [20]. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user [21] but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Here you are again, that's the same talk page one day later [22]. This is occurring continuously, every day, on multiple articles. I can present a comprehensive list of talk pages, RfC, etc. affected by newly created accounts/proxy generated IP’s. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(Collapsed outdated below)
Extended content
|
---|
- GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC) |
Updating (as of August 27th) - I can see that this is on hold, but I'm just letting you know that distress from the brand new accounts in the topic area continues [23], [24]. Nothing changed. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC) See this also - [25] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 06:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zero talk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I'm reminded by looking at the last case that I have better things to do with my life than participate in this. Sorry, I withdraw my statements. Levivich 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Levi that there's no need to "dice it up." If unexperienced editors and socks are a major problem on these articles, they aren't likely to be a net positive in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as {{ Single-purpose account}}. {{ csp}}, {{ csm}}, {{ Afdnewuser}} and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here:
There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)
As for the scope of the remedy, I feel like it's little things like this that makes the general sanctions regimes appear complicated. This is the only one of three authorisations to limit to "mainspace". I think extending the scope for simplicity's sake is worth it alone, given that the covered content in other namespaces is almost certainly very low (both relatively and absolutely). The collateral damage will also be insignificant compared to the collateral damage already caused by having this restriction in mainspace.
I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Topic-wide editing restriction: Editors who do not meet __(the 500/30 criteria)__ ("the criteria") are prohibited from editing material in any namespace related to ____ ("the topic area").Enforcement: For articles (pages in mainspace) whose subject primarily falls in the topic area, this restriction may be enforced using WP:ECP page protection. On other pages, this restriction may be enforced using appropriate technical restrictions such as page protection and edit filters, taking care not to frustrate unrelated editing unless necessary. Edits made by editors who do not meet the criteria may be reverted, and editors may be blocked if they continue to violate this restriction after being made aware of it. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit-warring.Exceptions: The sole exceptions to this restriction are:
- Editors who do not meet the criteria may use the talk namespaces to post comments and make edit requests, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc.
If ArbCom wishes to maintain its relevancy and keep the Wikipedia community active and vibrant, it needs to stop dealing in minutae and start putting its foot down. APL is bleeding editors and admins, people complain about their blood pressure and mental health (!), vandalism is an almost daily occurrence, and you're arguing about namespaces? What are you, the IETF? There are so many things that you could do to fix this, and instead you're putting your finger in the dike. François Robere ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If by PIA4 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is meant, one reason I did not participate much was I was moving. Quite literally, we were physically moving during the time period. But a much bigger reason I didn't do much with it was the sheer ... tiredness that the entire topic area (of Polish/Jewish history both before and during the Holocaust and the reprecussions of that history in the modern era) elicits in me. It's a cesspit of battleground behavior and the previous attempts (including that case and all the "clarifications" since from arbcom) have failed miserably. About a year ago, it got so bad, I just totally removed ALL the articles in the topic area from my watchlist, except for the main Holocaust article. As I have many of the English sources that could be used in this area, the fact that I've been driven off from it by the behavior of most of the editors in the area should be quite telling. The reason why the arbcom case didn't work was that there was no way within the word limits to possibly present enough evidence to persuade any arbs, and it's not worth the bother quite honestly. Right now, what you have is basically a bunch of editors who blame all problems on Icewhiz while spending what seems like all their time battling the "hordes of sockpuppets" of Icewhiz as well as trying to eliminate all sign of letting any of his edits (or any edits that they think MIGHT be his or might be inspired by him or ... you get the picture) remain in the encyclopedia. Until folks wake up to the tag teaming and battleground behavior and grasp the nettle to eliminate the folks doing that behavior, it's never going to get better. The inability to recognize that there are a large number of sources that are so hopelessly biased that they shouldn't be used ... is just the icing on the cake. Ealdgyth ( talk) 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
François Robere, POV is fine, APL is fine, even TP is fine, I suppose. But TA? Comeon! It took me minutes of hard drinking to figure out it meant topic area. Now, granted I'm much slower than your average reviewer of the ARCA (praise be), but for the love of Cow Man, please just write "topic area" plainly. Jeez, I'm trying to be stealth over here. El_C 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This is just about the 500/30 rule
I understand wanting a standard, but if arbcom is going to use numbers to describe trustworthiness, then the numbers in question shouldn't be higher than the trust needed to vote each of you into arbcom:
I mean really, 500 mainspace edits are what's required to be an arbitrator. Are we really wanting to set the bar that high?
As for 30, arbcom voters need roughly 60 days. I wouldn't mind if this were moved up to that. - jc37 19:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I reiterate RGloucester's original comment here too as it is relevant to the incident and clarification. The remedy was clear on its own, but I think the "...exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..." line cited by Volunteer Marek was not unreasonable to cite as an exception either. Volunteer Marek was clear about this interpretation at the outset and that misunderstanding should have been addressed first by the admin. An unequivocal warning was not issued (as I said at the ANI) or more ideally, a discussion that was more conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. That is why the community would have reversed the block in any case. I have previously seen AE admin threaten to stop their work if an action isn't supported, but thankfully Ymblanter will not be one of them - in that they behave maturely, even in the face of serious health issues during admin actions, by swiftly taking steps to address the issues caused by the blocks. There is a separate matter raised by Piotrus which Ymblanter hasn't yet addressed at the ANI, but they propose to deal with that after this ARCA is completed.
That just leaves one separate issue here - the wisdom of this 'tailored' rule that came into effect last year. I actually share the reservations held for implementing the rule at all. In spite of this, if one concludes that a rule is required, @ Worm That Turned and SoWhy: I don't understand how last year's rule is somehow helpful in alleviating the actual reservations. If the restrictions exist for the article space, why should the participation be allowed on project pages that are not in the talk space? AFAIK, new legitimate accounts will start out in the main space. Additionally, if we take care to remember why DS (a type of GS) was streamlined by AC in the first place, I think we can appreciate why a streamlined 500/30 rule (another type of GS) is more effective in resolving the underlying issues sought to be addressed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The amentment says: methods noted in paragraph b)
- What is "paragraph b)"?
Lembit Staan (
talk) 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Go with Arbpia and 500/30, it works, more or less (if I was going to change 500/30 it would be upwards). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The motion needs proof-reading - it includes "Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b)
" but there is no paragraph marked "b)" (indeed, paragraphs are not individually identified in any way).
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the EC omnibus motion, I suggest the following copy edits:
− | + | New editors are restricted from editing directly in topic areas specified by the Committee. All IP editors and users who are not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] are prohibited from editing within the designated area. For primary articles related to the topic area, this prohibition is preferably enforced using extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. For secondary pages with related content, or for primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the extended confirmed restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list
|1=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods mentioned in the prior paragraph. This exception does not apply to any other namespace.
|2=
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.{{pb}}For the purposes of this restriction, "primary" shall mean pages on which a majority of the content is within the conflict area. "Secondary" articles are those with less than a majority of their content related to the conflict area. Pages which mention the conflict area in mere passing, and whose content is not controversial, should ''not'' be considered to be within the scope of these restrictions.}}
|
I did not include the prohibition on requests for comments, requested moves, or other "internal project discussions" occurring on an article talk page, as I'm not clear on the practicality of allowing "constructive comments" in a non-RfC discussion but disallowing them for an RfC, in a discussion on an article title versus a requested move, and so forth. isaacl ( talk) 21:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I also urge the arbitrators not to use a term such as "ECP DS". Authorization for individual administrators to devise sanctions of their own invention is distinct from a defined page editing restriction. isaacl ( talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding WormThatTurned's suggestion to drop the terms "primary" and "secondary": I agree that when feasible, it's better to avoid having definitions to argue over. I do think, though, that it should be made clear that the editing restriction can apply to specific sections of an article and not only to entire articles. isaacl ( talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the "why 500/30" question above, the reality is that these topic areas see a lot more focused, determined WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT behavior than ArbCom elections. Yes, ArbCom elections are in theory more momentous, but topic areas that run along the fault line of real-world disputes are often what draws the sort of editors who engage in WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT behavior and which causes them to keep doing it. That means that topic areas like Antisemitism in Poland or ARBPIA are more likely to see disruptive attempts to evade any restriction, necessitating the longer period to make it harder to work around. And on a philosophical level, editors have less need to edit in a disputed topic area than they do to have a voice in selecting ArbCom - if a new editor desperately wants to edit ARBPIA articles, we can just ask them to edit elsewhere for a bit first; whereas when we cut an editor out of the process of electing ArbCom, we've disenfranchised them and that's that. Forbidding intermittent new editors who never reach 500/30 from voting for ArbCom would be more of a loss than banning them from ARBPIA. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
{{
subst:Gs/alert}}
use the abbreviation "Gs" despite explicitly only applying for community-sanctions). I don't think any further discussion of "mistakes" in usage is helpful though. I see your point that this has led to some confusion in general, however, I don't see any of that applying in this specific case where the language of the DS in question was clear and the question whether DS are a part of GS or something separate is not of any relevance afaics. Regards
So
Why 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)I have furthermore simply removed content from "editing content", as I believe that to be redundant. We already have a list of enumerated exceptions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's an alternative:
Old version
|
---|
|
I'm still not a huge fan of this approach. We would be better off codifying how all of our topic-wide restrictions should be construed. This draft, however, doesn't introduce new terminology and I think is more clear than the current text. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Now proposed below.
|
---|
In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:
|
Above is a second draft of the motion. This may be an improvement on the status quo, but our procedures need to codify even more: (keep in mind I'm writing these kind of off the cuff)
I don't want these other things to hold up improvements, but we should be conscious that we're not making other things worse when we try housekeeping motions like this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)