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 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | → | 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 Tgeorgescu at 14:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Nationalist editors, who only defend one side of the story should be indeffed or topic banned on the spot. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh jeez. The number of times over the years, I've come across nationalism being pushed (successfully sometimes) in areas of the project. What's being asked for in this ARCA, has the potential to open up a barrel of worms. GoodDay ( talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
As tempting as it is, this is not practical. WP:DE is already policy and WP:TEND already exists and if arbitrators had a magic wand that would make enforcing those easy and straightforward without collateral damage, they would have waved it already. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:09, 23 December 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.
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 GeneralNotability at 22:07, 2 January 2022 (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
I ask that ArbCom clarify whether remedy 2 of the Scientology case, " Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is still in effect. As far as I can tell, it is de facto not enforced - this quarry (credit to AntiCompositeNumber for the query) shows that there haven't been rangeblocks mentioning Scientology since 2010, with one individual IP block in 2011 (most were applied in 2009 following the case), and most of the blocks should have expired in 2014 since they were set for five-year durations. Further, the IP ranges assigned to the Church of Scientology have changed since the case; the church owns ASNs 7914 and 25823 (credit to wizzito for identifying the relevant ASNs) and none of the ranges owned by those ASNs are currently blocked. Blocking these IPs to enforce the remedy is trivial, but I believe ArbCom should consider whether this remedy is still necessary to prevent disruption. Given that the bans expired years ago but we have not seen significant disruption, I'm inclined to say that it is not (and that our normal community processes, like COIN, should be enough to contain disruption if it should resume in the future), but I've got no problem with applying the blocks if the Committee believes they are necessary. I just don't like being in this in-between state of "remedy is on the books but is not being enforced".
Actually, looking at the query linked, the last 2 IPs blocked for Scientology reasons were 216.60.18.40 (registered to the Bank of Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma; blocked 1 month in November 2018) and 138.130.234.8 (registered to Telstra Internet in Sydney, Australia; blocked 24 hours June 2018). 92.37.9.164 (registered to A1 in Ljubljana, Slovenia) was the last block mentioning this ArbCom decision. Neither of these are registered to Scientology. wizzito | say hello! 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a bit more than this, but overall, my point is that this rule is outdated and these IPs barely edit or don't at all (at least anonymously, I'd 100 percent support a checkuser for some of these ranges) wizzito | say hello! 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've been an active watcher (and sometimes reverter) at the top level Scientology article. I think that there is still some more wiki-saavy efforts by them there but the old IP protection is probably not needed or relevant. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:02, 5 January 2022 (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.
Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.
Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 11:30, 7 January 2022 (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 BilledMammal at 04:06, 3 January 2022 (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
I ask that ArbCom clarify whether ECR applies to discussions on RSN regarding sources that are related to the topic area, broadly construed
. If it does, I ask ArbCom to also clarify related to the topic area, broadly construed
in this context, and whether non-ECP editors are allowed to comment regarding the reliability of the source for uses outside of topics covered by ECR.
This clarification request was prompted by two discussions at RSN,
Jewish Chronicle and
CounterPunch. Both had considerable involvement from socks and non-ECP editors, and during a
close review of the former where the question of ECR was raised the closer stated I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.
related to the topic area, broadly construedfor ECR to apply?" If the response to this is "yes", the follow up clarification requests to this would be "How is "sufficiently" determined?" and, given the need to not disenfranchise users from participating in discussions, "How do we handle the participation of non-ECP editors in such discussions?". BilledMammal ( talk) 05:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Opabinia regalis I don't believe there is anything unusual about those two RFC's that would result in broader than usual input. I also believe you are right about a large number of non-ECP editors being unusual; I took a look at a recent RFC with decent participation, RfC: The Daily Wire, and was unable to identify any !votes from non-ECP editors, though it is possible that I overlooked them. I also took a look at a recent RFC with !votes from multiple socks, RfC: The Canary, and found that of the unbanned !voters, four were non-ECP at the time of the RFC. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Beeblebrox and BDD; based your comments about how it currently functions, I believe there will be a number of RFC's at RSN that will need to be reclosed, including but not limited to The Canary and CounterPunch. However, while I understand the difficulty in providing a precise definition, I would ask that you comment on two ambiguous examples so that we have a baseline to refer to. Specifically, would ECR apply to an RFC on CNN (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, but discussions about its reliability do not tend to involve ECR topics) and an RFC on Al Jazeera (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, and discussions about its reliability do tend to involve ECR topics). I would assume that it doesn't apply to the former and that it does apply to the latter, but I would appreciate formal clarification on this, particularly if I am incorrect.
Finally, I would note without raising a question that this would appear to mean that ECR also applies to RM's that have an impact both inside and outside ECR areas, such as this one (ECR not applied at the time, two blocked socks, one unblocked IP). BilledMammal ( talk) 05:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As regards Arbpia related matters, I am almost sure that the intention has been to disallow unqualified editors from participating in formal discussions, see this ARCA, the usual procedure being to strike any comments made. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Bobfrombrockley: The case is not about those three RFCs specifically but the more general question of whether participation is permitted at noticeboards if the matter under discussion is related to matters where ecp applies (not just Arbpia). As several have said, "broadly construed" would be a case by case issue decided at the time of/before/after a discussion so I don't think there is any retrospective declaration here. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Part 5B(1) of the ARBPIA General Sanctions says
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 in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. (my emphasis)
Since RSN is a noticeboard, non-ec editors are not allowed to engage in ARBPIA-related discussion there. Zero talk 13:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, OR, the number of socks and non-ec editors taking part in those discussions was exceptional even by ARBPIA standards. It is reasonable to ask why but I have no evidence to offer. Zero talk 13:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, you write that e-c restrictions are "not to disenfranchise users from participating in discussions", but the part of the ARBPIA General Sanctions that I put in bold are intended to keep non-ec editors out of formal discussions. They are necessary because otherwise RfCs, RMs, etc, are overrun by IPs and SPAs. It can't be controlled by anti-disruption methods, because it isn't obviously disruptive. (Imagine if 10 IPs show up and all !vote the same way. Can an uninvolved admin decide to remove them all? On what grounds?) They can still participate in informal talk-page discussion. These rules are a blessing for the smooth running of the ARBPIA area and I really really hope you don't consider changing them. Zero talk 13:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I was notified but I'm not sure exactly what the question is here. If the issue is my statement during review of the Jewish Chronicle RfC (I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.
), my issue was not whether ECR can apply to RSN discussions in the abstract (I understand that it can), the issue is whether it applies to the RfC in question. Rarely do RfCs say "is X source reliable for articles in Y topic area". The Jewish Chronicle one was marked asking with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam
, although the consensus I found was for the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians
. Some editors commented on the reliability more generally, and not just limited to these areas. So are non-EC editors prohibited from commenting here? If so, who makes that call? I don't know if it's appropriate for a non-admin closer to unilaterally decide whether an administrative ruling applies in order to disenfranchise certain editors in these circumstances. I will note that there was severe sockpuppet disruption in that RfC (6 sockpuppets), but all were above EC.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I participated in the CounterPunch, Canary and Jewish Chronicle RfCs. If I understand the discussion here correctly, the argument is that because these discussions fall within the ARBPIA area, only extended confirmed editors should participate. My strong view is that these three RfCs extended far beyond the ARBPIA area. In relation to CounterPunch, the discussion was sparked by the use of a CounterPunch article (which was written by a non-expert and included several factual errors) as a source for facts about international law in the article Alex Saab, which has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine/Israel. While some of the currently contentious uses of it broadly relate to Palestine/Israel (e.g. Sara Roy, Alan Dershowitz) most of its uses on Wikipedia are totally unrelated, and the examples used to argue for unreliability/deprecation in the RfC related to vaccinations, 9/11, Xinjiang, the Holodomor, Holocaust denial, etc. Similarly, in The Canary discussion (there were actually several discussions in a row, all with overwhelming consensus against reliability), examples of unreliable reporting raised related to the NHS, Syria, RussiaGate, harassment of journalists in Nicaragua and many other issues. The Jewish Chronicle discussion was framed as "Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam", none of which are Israel/Palestine. The examples of unreliability raised related to the British Labour Party and not to the Middle East. In conclusion, I see no reason to retrospectively declare these discussions under the ARBPIA category. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Beyond the problem with explaining how brand new accounts or ones that mysteriously only show up to vote on occasion find a discussion on RSN, the fact that it is I/P users heavily socking in these discussions should inform one as to why these should be covered. In the discussions Bob brings up, Icewhiz (5 IW socks in CP, 4 in the JC discussion) and NoCal100 (1 sock each) socks formed a huge chunk of the votes in favor of deprecation for CP ( or maintaining reliability for the Jewish Chronicle. Why might that be? Beyond the obvious seeking to impact a restricted topic area. And in these discussions, where a handful of users can have a huge impact, see for example the 15 users in good standing, including the non-EC users who should be discounted, being used to expunge a source across the encyclopedia, we need to have some level of protection against disruption. nableezy - 17:58, 6 January 2022 (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.
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 Atsme at 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The date of Awilley's first topic ban action is July 22 2019 but he modified it July 24, 2019 to cover US only, perhaps because I called an RfC at the only article that is clearly subject of this t-ban, and where I also received an apology for the behavior that resulted in my stated concerns over how I was being treated. As Awilley has said in the past to other editors who reacted defensively to aggressive editors, we need to grow thicker skin. A few of the diffs he included involved my attempt to fix the header template at Talk:Fascism because it conflicts with consensus from an RFC, and contradicts the resulting lead of the article, but that topic is not part of my t-ban. He also used diffs for my limited participation in an AfD involving a BLP which may or may not be associated with the topic of my t-ban. I have had very limited participation in that topic area as evidenced in this discussion. Please forgive me, but "backroom deals" don't sit well with me, so I chose to bring my appeal here. It is now January 1, 2022 and the topic ban has been in place approximately 2-1/2 years for a topic area where I have spent very little time over the past decade as an editor. In fact, an iota of time would be an gargantuan overstatement in comparison to my total edits. I would very much like to start the New Year with a clean slate, and hope ArbCom will agree that it has been long enough.
To satisfy Awilley's requirement, in the future I will try to avoid accusing people of gaslighting. Having said that, I hope we will see the removal of WP:GASLIGHTING from our PAGs in order to avoid future misunderstandings per #4. Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. Examples: denying that you posted what you did, suggesting someone agreed to something they did not, pretending your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, or refusing to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus. As far as controversial topics go, I will take BDD's advice to heart and make IDGAF my friend. Atsme 💬 📧 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, traveling. I've always been willing to lift this ban on the condition that Atsme makes some kind of commitment to remedy the problem that led to this (and the previous) ban. I haven't seen that yet. The last appeal ( June 2021) was kind of the opposite. Summarizing: "Commit to what? There is no problem. Others were the problem. You're the problem.") I'd be happy to see this ban lifted if Atsme simply said she'd try harder to follow the 2019 promise referenced below by StarshipPaint. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Adding: for anyone unfamiliar with the history, this started with my closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Atsme this appeal, which rescinded Atsme's topic ban for the whole of American Politics. Based on comments in the admin section, my close included a warning that "backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban will result in further sanctions". Less than 4 months later I saw these edits [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] accusing 4 different editors of, among other things, "gaslighting" and POV pushing. That seemed a clear case of backsliding, but instead of restoring the full AP2 topic ban, I imposed a very narrow ban for Anti-Fascism (ANTIFA).
I'll avoid any further defense of the legitimacy of the ban. I think that was settled in previous appeals. Nov 2019 Nov 2020
@ North8000: I'm not insisting on a full re-commitment to the 2019 promises specifically. I just want to see some kind of commitment to do better. I'd settle for something as simple as "In the future I'll try to avoid accusing people of gaslighting." This is how I approach all appeals. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@
Atsme: will you recommit to your 2019 position?
[7] if I ever find myself participating in the AP2 topic area again I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind, will answer questions if asked and will maintain my customary polite demeaner at all times. If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas. I have also read the essays
WP:WORLDSEND,
WP:DGAF, and
WP:LETITGO and have taken them to heart.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 08:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@
Atsme: I'll understand that as a 'yes', so I support lifting the sanctions, as Atsme has recommitted her intentions. From this, either all is well, or this is
WP:ROPE. Anyway, I just saw that Awilley hasn't edited at all in December, so we might not hear from him here soon.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 07:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
whatever "backsliding" meansoverall statement. So, the history, topic banned for [8]
filibustering and dominating discussions without bringing them forward(2018), effectively commits not to bludgeon (2019, see above), but did bludgeon in the 2020 Fox News RfC (this is a clear example from the link to the discussion itself even if diffs are not provided), that's backsliding. Atsme - defensiveness over that RfC, or defensiveness over Bishonen's statements, are not helpful. What would be more helpful to your case - 1) acknowledge that the 2020 Fox News RfC bludgeoning was problematic in the context of your 2018 topic ban and your 2019 commitment, and 2) clearly re-commit (like 2019) to not repeating this behaviour (of 2020). starship .paint ( exalt) 14:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor and not an Arb, since I have a fairly strong personal opinion on the matter and am the main author on Anti-fascism. As a practical point, this sanction is no longer needed. Its been over two years. Anti-fascism in the US is no longer the spicy hot-button issue it was a few years back. Atsme notes that she is not usually involved in these sort of topics. Even at the time she made a well worded appeal. I understand there is some hesitance to remove a ban because the editor wants a clean slate. But I think we should be more aware of the impacts of sanctions. We may have high ideals about turning the other cheek and being magnanimous, but our editors are still just people. Having inapplicable or unjust sanctions applying to them years later decreases editor morale and editor retention. Lift Atsme's ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I won't oppose or support Atsme's article ban appeal. But since at least one arb (
Primefac) has shown interest in the larger question of her 2019 new year's promises to do better in the area of American politics, I'll offer a brief history of the fate of these promises, and also point to her apparent unwillingness to explicitly reaffirm them here. These were
some very strong and sincere-sounding promises which led to her indefinite AP2 topic ban being lifted in March 2019 and which are partly quoted by
Starship.paint above. Atsme's
reply to Starship.paint's question about recommitting to the promises seems quite evasive. It consists only of a diff from July 2019 meant as a "demonstrative answer" (?), and the statement that I have always taken and will continue to take my commitments seriously.
The diff does not mention those promises or their content. It seems irrelevant to Starship.paint's question, and I'm quite surprised Starship.paint 'understands it as a yes'. I wonder if Primefac and the other arbs understand it so too.
Atsme has not always taken those commitments seriously. By August 2020, she had comprehensively backslid (in my opinion) from them, and when this was pointed out by a regular user,
[9] she showed no interest in reaffirming the commitments or even acknowledging them.
[10] Indeed, she aggressively blew off the regular user with "I don't need you dancing atop a 2 year action [this refers to her t-ban from American politics] that was questionable from the get-go. Stop dredging up the past"
and impugned their motives. The way she absconded from her promises and resented being reminded of them alarmed me, and I posted a warning in my admin role,
[11] reminding her that they were what got her topic ban lifted and giving specifics about current problems that I perceived. A striking recent example then was the way she had bludgeoned the Fox News RFC in the summer of 2020, posting some 75 times in it — quite the contrast to the 2019 undertaking "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas"
. I urged her to re-read her old appeal and start living up to her old promises, or I would consider reinstating the AP2 topic ban. She made no reply. Perhaps the arbs want to consider whether they'd like a clearer reply from Atsme to the question above about reaffirming her promises.
Bishonen |
tålk 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
I don't think my opinion will matter much but I would support the appeal. This isn't an appeal to lift a general politics tban, but a narrow sub-set tban. Atsme has shown that they aren't a problem in the broader topic space which should be all the evidence we need to say that this ban is no longer needed to protect Wikipedia. Politics, especially in the last year has been particularly divisive yet we don't have clear evidence of any backsliding. I know Bishonen noted the concerns of another editor. It's worth noting the editor was involved in the topic area and several topics with Atsme herself vs an uninvolved editor trying to raise a helpful concern. We are over a year later and two and a half years after the general AP ban was lifted. It seems like it's increasingly difficult to view this tban as needed to protect Wikipedia. Springee ( talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment for those who are opposing the removal, what harm are we protecting here? The purpose of tbans etc is specifically to protect Wikipedia. What harm is likely to come if this is removed? I think that Bishonen's comments have given editors real concern but should they? I see two basic concerns, the first being replies to Soibangla, the second being replies to the Fox RfC. Above I mentioned the concerns other editors have expressed with the way Soibangla has interacted with others. Atsme's replies to what look like battleground comments directed at Atsme look blunt but restrained. The Fox RfC did have a lot of comments but it was a VERY long RfC [26]. This RfC had 63 citations, ~650 signed edits and was active for a month and a half (7 June to 21 July). I counted 67 signed comments by Atsme in that RfC. Quite a few editors were well into the double digits. Many of Atsme's edits were back and forth discussions rather than an editor individually challenging every editor who opposed Atsme's POV which is typically where we raise the bludgeoning concern. They weren't a bunch of uncivil comments, most seem quite congenial even in disagreement. Yes, 67 is a lot but when looking at the total size and But when we look at the total length and breadth of the discussion this isn't the bludgeoning the raw number makes it appear to be. So after 2.5 years of very contentious politics this is all the evidence we have to refuse to lift a narrow topic band? Again, are we actually protecting Wikipedia? If people really are that concerned I think WTT's probationary period is a good compromise. Springee ( talk) 15:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I came here to support this, but now I'd like to see an answer to Bishonen's statement. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I was highly reluctant to participate in this discussion, but Atsme's assertion that I wrongfully accused me of a BLP vio, obviously in retaliation for this incident
is flatly false and is indicative of an unrelenting vendetta that Atsme is attempting to project upon me. I find Atsme incorrigible and if it were up to me Atsme would have been permanently banned from AP2 years ago. I cannot fathom why Atsme has been given so many passes for persistently bad behavior. And I fully anticipate that I will be targeted for retribution for coming right out and saying it. Bring it.
soibangla (
talk) 15:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to hear Atsme's response to Awilley's request. Unlike starship.paint, I don't take her response as a yes, and I'd prefer something more clearcut. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't follow AP so consider this a kibitzer opinion. A request to remove a ban should be crisp and clear. It should recognize why the ban was imposed and clearly state what the editor will do to ensure that the particular behavior is not repeated. I don't see that here. starship.paint's question, for example, required a pro-forma "yes, yes, yes,..." response but, instead, we get a two year old diff that is a non-answer (especially in the light of later diffs from Bishonen). The Opabinia regalis question also required a straightforward answer (this, this, this, or some combination of the three) but, instead, we get a long meandering response with a pointer to an essay (with a, less than encouraging, reference to "admin cabals") and an AfD, neither of which actually answer the questions. Frankly, the topic ban itself seems so limited that it hardly seems to matter whether it stays or goes but, procedurally, it would be nice to see clear statements from the requester and I'm puzzled as to why Atsme seems to not want to be direct in their responses. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 13:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. 2 1/2 years is enough. Regarding the possible commitment in question, it is a very long post with at least a half dozen interpret-able conditions and a minefield for anybody to commit to. About the only way to fulfill the multiple possible interpretations of those half dozen commitments would be near-zero participation. A better merge would be saying zero drama in that area (with near-zero participation being the only way to safe way to fulfill all interpretations of that)for 6 months. After that they would just have the same scrutiny that all editors have. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Cool and sounds very reasonable. I was just pointing out the issues of going by that particular post and why one would be hesitant to commit to it. North8000 ( talk) 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Suggest clarification. After 12 months and if all goes well, is it all over, or go back to a full ban or require another discussion/decision here? North8000 ( talk) 22:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Atsme previously appealed this topic ban unsuccessfully at WP:AE in November 2020 ( link). I don't see that she's mentioned or linked that appeal. One reviewing admin described it as "large amounts of text disclaiming any responsibility on the grounds that everything is some other users' fault". Little seems to have changed, despite the passage of time.
It's common for appeals to contain red flags, but this appeal consists of nothing but red flags: re-litigation of the original ban, no acknowledgement of its rationale, no convincing insight or commitment to change, no real argument beyond time-served, and a lengthy list of grievances. It's quintessential WP:NOTTHEM and bad-faith wikilawyering. I mean, she's soup-spitting you guys about the term "backsliding". Come on.
As usual, debate here focuses on the rights of the sanctioned user. Those affected by her behavior—their voices are largely silent here, their time and experience accorded basically zero value in your deliberations. You guys can pat yourselves on the back, quote the-quality-of-mercy speech and WP:ROPE, and pretend that there's no cost to lifting these sorts of sanctions, because there is no cost to you, and because your empathy extends only to the sanctioned user. It's like letting a wolf loose in a henhouse and then congratulating yourselves on your kindness to animals.
As others have pointed out, Atsme's AP2 topic ban was lifted in response to vague commitments to do better, commitments which were promptly ignored and exposed as toothless. It was foolish and irresponsible to have lifted that topic ban in the absence of any insight or reason to think the underlying behavior would change. But doing the same thing again—as you seem to be considering here—would be outright administrative malpractice. MastCell Talk 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The amendment is requested to You are indefinitely topic banned from Anti fascism in the United States, broadly construed.
I fail to see, how under even the broadest of construals, the RfC about the reliability of Fox News has anything to do with Antifa in the US.
Template:Warning Fascism left-wing was the issue of concern there. The title of that template shouldn't be of much concern since that's not visible to readers. The text of that template has been stable since
Jimbo Wales 14 June 2021 edit (I synced it with the current version of the article). There is no reason to maintain sanctions over that. This sanction seems to be (mostly) about Atsme's use of the term "gaslighting". Some background on that.
MrX, who at the time was actively editing the
Donald Trump bio,
created several related shortcuts on 22 June 2018, and boldly
amended the Wikipedia:Gaming the system behavioral guideline by adding "Employing
gaslighting tactics by using misdirection, repetition, contradiction, and off-topic rambling to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. Example: Repeatedly complaining about bias in the press or clickbait to undermine reliable sources, while ignoring requests to stay on topic.
" with edit summary "Happy to discuss on talk if anyone disagrees with this." This was apparently in preparation for the
American politics 2 amendment request he filed on 28 June 2018 (just 6 days later), in which he accused Atsme of Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources (
WP:GASLIGHTING)
. AWilley did not approve of this term, as he filed a
redirect for discussion stating This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect.
Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse.
but there was no consensus to delete the term, and today the target says Employing
gaslighting tactics – such as history
re-writing, reality
denial,
misdirection, baseless
contradiction,
projection of one's own foibles onto others,
repetition, or
off-topic rambling – to
destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord.
I'm wondering why we've sanctioned an editor for using a term for which there was no consensus to delete and which still is used on a behavioral guideline page, and if this is sanctionable, was
MrX ever sanctioned for accusing Atsme of gaslighting?
wbm1058 (
talk) 23:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
put a "provisional" clause on the removal, that an uninvolved administrator can return it and if none have after 12 months it is completely removed.Aren't uninvolved administrators always authorized to place discretionary sanctions where allowed – for new instances of sanctionable behavior, even if the sanction is identical to a previously expired or repealed sanction that was imposed for an old instance of sanctionable behavior? – without needing any enabling "clause" – and would removal of the "clause" after 12 months then have the effect of prohibiting the imposition of sanctions for new instances of sanctionable behavior? wbm1058 ( talk) 16:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The primary meaning of backsliding, according to Wikipedia, is a term used within Christianity to describe a process by which an individual who has converted to Christianity reverts to pre-conversion habits and/or lapses or falls into sin... the backslidden individual is in danger of eventually going to Hell if he does not repent. I don't care for the use of this term with its negative religious connotations in conversations about behavior on Wikipedia. Ideally, I'd like to see both terms "backsliding" and "gaslighting" removed from the vocabulary of behavioral discussions on Wikipedia. – wbm1058 ( talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend Atsme provide a direct and concise response to the arbs and Awilley and then just avoid AP articles and issues altogether. No one can fix those places, especially in this political climate. So it better to find places in the pedia that allow one to have some fun and avoid some folks with serious mental and emotional issues.-- MONGO ( talk) 16:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there anything actually added by the provisional nature of the motion below? Cant any uninvolved admin already re-impose a topic ban as a DS if they feel it required, AP2 still being a topic area covered by DS? Just seems like a distinction without a difference in lifting the ban and the way it is worded below. nableezy - 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Possibly moot, but IMO reasonable editors who are on the more-conservative side than the average editor ought to be valued for what they can offer, even if considering their pov sometimes feels frustrating, because considering their pov is necessary for arriving at NPOV. When only one or two people are arguing for something, it can look like disruption and feel like it to those who are in the majority politically. That doesn't mean we should treat it as disruptive. It might just mean we need to pry open our own minds and that we should think about that possibility.
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.
Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
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 Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Please replace the 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without needing to go through AFC. This will reduce the number of articles I can create a year from 52 to 12 but will mean I can create them directly however we should also consider allowing me to create a specified number of civil parishes for the parishes project, there are 407 left as well as allowing appeal every 6 months. There are also a number of other suggestions I have made here. Several editors at the last appeal said they would be happy with allowing 1 article a week with no AFC but I don't think we need to allow 1 article a week on anything, it should probably only be 1 article a month but as noted a specified number of civil parishes for the project could be specified such as 1 article a month on anything and 1 parish 1 week etc so as noted it could just be 1 article every 3 months or 1 article every 6 months as long as the AFC requirement is removed. As noted before I have had very few articles declined at AFC. Please specify which options and what creation limits you accept even if its only 1 article a year, example, 1 article a month, 1 parish a week, appeal after 6 months.
There remains NPP, and anything odd is likely to be noticed there, as many of the same people work both. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
As a somewhat experienced AfC reviewer I'll chime in to respond to
Beeblebrox. AfC is extremely cluttered. The backlog is currently at 2516 pending submissions, with the oldest submissions requiring review being 2-3 months old. This is actually relatively good, as the backlog can sometimes reach to 5 months worth of articles. It's not unusual for editors to have to wait for months to get a review at AfC. This makes it an unbearable process for a lot of people, since by the time an article actually gets reviewed many people don't care anymore. Arbs should also consider the impact on AfC from these restrictions. If the restrictions are necessary to prevent disruption (I am unfamiliar with this user), so be it, but AfC submissions do require volunteer time & effort to review above that of
WP:NPP.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding consensus for parish articles, the answer seems to be that there is currently no such consensus. The most recent relevant discussions I can find are:
As someone who in 2016-17 created articles for many of the missing parishes in Cumbria (a whole batch had been deleted as the creations of a blocked editor, I think), I support the idea that every civil parish in England should be represented in Wikipedia, whether as a stand-alone article or as a clear description/section within the article on the settlement whose name it shares. Parishes have population figures available from census info on NOMIS, mostly they have a parish council or parish meeting which has a website or a mention on the county's website, their history is sometimes of interest and available from Visions of Britain, etc. But I confess that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC was just TLDR, hence my lack of input there. As for the Missing Parishes project, I chipped in at User:Crouch,_Swale/Missing_parishes_(1)#Cumbria, and that set of lists of county-by-county missing parishes seems a useful starting point for creation of useful articles. So without commenting on the overall question of Crouch's restrictions, I support allowing at least a slightly more generous allowance for the creation of parish articles. Pam D 18:57, 5 January 2022 (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.
Can you clearly articulate why you think [your restrictions exist]?As for the second question, I am not interested in what you think the "several" arbitrators said last time. Let me try asking the question a different way to see if that helps you understand what my second question was asking:
What behavior can you show or what promises can you give that the behavior which earned you the restrictions in the first place will not be repeated?Izno ( talk) 22:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible. Is there community consensus that these topics are all notable enough for standalone articles? If so, then I don't see much harm in the proposed changes; if someone's had consistent success through AfC we can reasonably say they're likely to continue. But it also seems like this change won't get to your stated goals any faster, so I'm not quite sure I get it. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions."Have you done so? – bradv 🍁 19:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Sorry for the multiple revisions, please see above. I think we want CS to have the ability to use his sandbox/userspace/etc to make sure his articles are ready for primetime. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (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 El C at 15:46, 6 February 2022 (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
I hate this template so much! Erm, as you may or may not know, there has been a resurgence in disruption pertaining to Turkey and Turkic peoples (especially Turkish people) lately, at times with the Armenian genocide as its nexus, other times with a less modern historical focus ( Ottoman Empire and earlier), especially vis-à-vis Iranian peoples (esp. Persians).
There are 4 threads related to these topics at WP:ANI right now (permalinks: #Abrvagl, #Arvinahmadi1994, #37.111.218.179, #WP:NOTHERE_by_Mountain_gora), which is on the high end of normal. At a (2nd) glance, these all appear to be disparate individuals and related sub/topics.
Anyway, the WP:KURDS, WP:AA2, and to a lesser extent WP:ARBIRP DSs, provide a lot of overlapping coverage (coverage which isn't the easiest to navigate, but it's aiight), except when they don't. Maybe it's time for some creative stuff? And things? I dunno. Thanks for indulging me! El_C 15:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm questioning the coherence of some of the above, so I'll put it another way. Two likely things would happen to a Western Asian disruptive account that isn't blatant enough for a simple WP:DE-block. Either their disruption will become prolific enough that they'll get a siteban or equivalent at AN/ANI (which is often hard to come by due to lack of familiarity with the subject matter by the average reviewer of these noticeboards). Or, eventually, they'll run afoul of the existing DSs. Sometime, they become productive contributors, lest we forget that does happen, though unfortunately not as often.
Basically, I'm concerned with the attrition faced by our veteran contributors who regularly edit these topics. Honestly, I don't really know what to do. I originally just wanted a better alert system that accounted/connected these to the other non-ARBPIA Western Asian DSs, but I'm not sure that it can be done under the current system without having a blanket Western Asia of all/most eras DS, which doesn't seem too feasible (or desirable).
The point is that, to me, it feels like the bleed in this area has become near constant. So now I put it out there, FWIW. El_C 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't Turkey and the Ottoman Empire fall under Eastern Europe and the Balkans? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:15, 6 February 2022 (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 Shrike at 19:10, 19 February 2022 (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
First of all, I don't seek sanctions for anyone so it's not an appeal on the recent AE case [28] but rather a clarification. Here are my questions:
@ Dennis Brown: Thank you for your answer, But here removal was of recent material so it has nothing to do with age the user removed twice the name of the countries the first removal was edit the second is a revert Shrike ( talk) 20:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
In the case given, one revert was obvious, the other was removing some unrelated material in a different part of the article. 1RR doesn't mean you can do normal editing, which can be adding or removing material. As I said in AE (and I will expand on), my understanding is there needs to be some kind of link, although not directly.
There are others, those are just the most obvious. But if you have reverted once in 24 hours, saying that NO material may be removed or changed would essentially mean that once you have reverted something, you can't edit for 24 hours at the risk of making minor changes that someone will see as "reverting material added previously". I don't think 1RR is meant to be overarching and onerous as to prevent the normal editing of articles. It's only meant to prevent disruption. How old does material need to be before removing it isn't really a "revert"? I don't have a number, but I can tell when it is soon enough to count under 1RR, and not every removal of prose is a "revert".
As to "get a pass", that doesn't really apply here, and that isn't so much a matter of the policy as the judgement of the admin enforcing Arbitration areas. Admin are given great latitude in handling these cases, within the boundaries of WP:ADMINACCT. El C closed it, and I didn't see his close as a "pass". The solution to every problem isn't always the ban hammer anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Shrike, to reiterate what I said at AE, whether this (replacing something with something else vs removing that thing outright) was a violation may well end up being subject to admin interpretation where one's mileage may vary. As mentioned, I wouldn't have counted this as a violation, though it technically may be one. A different admin might see it different.
As I noted to
Dennis Brown [refactor], my understanding is that 1RR follows the mechanic of 3RR: whether involving the same or different material.
But I [also added how I] can understand wanting to omit that to lessen the gotcha/stumble factor somewhat.
Shrike, about the "free pass": in my view, even if self-reverting would no longer be possible, it's still advisable to raise the matter with the user all the same (XYT). The goal is to foster best practices through good faith dialogue, not have a tit-for-tat of... I dunno that time their side got a free pass but this time ours didn't, and so on. El_C 19:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with El_C that "whether involving the same or different material
" applies to 1RR. The problem is more that "revert" is not itself defined precisely, and the definition as such does not always match the motivation of slowing down edit wars.
It should be expected at AE that editors are given the chance to self-revert 1RR violations before being reported. However, editors should not be able to use this right as a way to make repeated risk-free reverts, only self-reverting when asked to. Everyone should have an allowance for honest mistakes, but only a limited allowance.
Speaking as the third admin who commented on the request in question; I agree entirely with Zero0000 below. 1RR certainly applies to different content, but determining what constitutes a revert can sometimes be tricky. With respect to sanction enforcement, what becomes important is the effect and perceived intent of the edit. Gaming of 1RR, and slow edit-warring, is usually easy to spot; it didn't seem to be a part of the motivation here. That's why I was not supportive of a sanction; not because users get a free pass if they aren't given a chance to self-revert. As such I don't see anything for ARBCOM to clarify here, unless Shrike is directly appealing the AE decision, which they say they're not. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (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.
appeal the dismissalof an AE thread to ARCA, but it looks like you've explicitly disclaimed such a path (
I don't seek sanctions for anyone). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:50, 20 February 2022 (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 BDD ( talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:02, 27 February 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 Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles: [30] and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
BDD, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.
In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
WormTT, I will be more careful in which sources I use in the topic area. DS is also in effect now so any disruption by anyone, and that person can be brought to enforcement and the problem will be settled there quickly. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (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.
Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:55, 20 March 2022 (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 Newslinger at 04:12, 16 March 2022 (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
In the
2021 discretionary sanctions review and on
Template talk:Ds, several suggestions have been proposed to improve how
discretionary sanctions are communicated to editors. This clarification amendment request seeks to bring four of these suggestions to the Arbitration Committee for consideration and implementation.
{{
Ds/aware}}
template on your user talk page.
{{
Ds/aware}}
template on your user talk page and specifying in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about.
topic_code
parameter must be set in {{
Ds/aware}} for the opt-out to take effectThank you for your consideration. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Though Newslinger and myself have only discussed points 1-3, via the discussion at Template talk:Ds, I do support all four raised here.
Specifically for point four, I know that when I first became involved in editing in a DS topic area, I found it difficult to understand what exactly the extra restrictions were. The guide at WP:ACDS opens with a set of definitions, and the information that would be applicable to most editors; the guidance for editors section, is not summarised in a lead or otherwise obviously signposted either on that page, or in the Ds/alert template.
@
Izno: with respect to
WP:BOLD and requiring an amendment/clarification, there's a content note/warning on the template page that reads This template is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, as one of its associated enforcement processes. Therefore, you must not make significant changes to the wording or functionality of this template without the committee's consent. Thank you!
Given the presence of this, neither of us felt it was appropriate for us to make the changes unilaterally.
One question before I finish, if I need to reply here again, is there a word limit here similar to that of arbitration case requests? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this case is anything like the DS Aware Template discussion that took place on May 13, 2019 and passed. I received this notice advising me of same. I have a permanent template at the top of my UTP, and so do others (admins and editors alike), so if an editor shows up at your page to post a DS notice, it triggers a message saying the editor is already aware. Is there something different about this case that I'm not understanding? I'm not all that savvy if it involves programming or technical changes. If it's about having the ability to totally opt out without needing a notice on our UTP, then count me as a support as long as notice in edit view of DS articles and in the TP header. Atsme 💬 📧 02:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Newslinger - thx for your suggestions and explanation. Just wanted you to see this diff. When an editor attempts to post a DS alert on my TP, it triggers a filter that lists all DS of which I'm aware, if not all (or at least it's supposed to trigger it as the diff demonstrates). Atsme 💬 📧 05:04, 17 March 2022 (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.
Speaking personally: All the changes you suggest sound good to me. I think Change #4 is definitely going to happen – the DS draft that was circulated internally last year has one, and my sense is the addition of a lead is pretty popular with the rest of the committee. Changes #1-3 are changes to the templates, which definitely could use some attention. Formally, the templates seem to require ArbCom majorities to change (even though in practice oftentimes arbs/others make BOLD edits). One of my top DS reform priorities is changing that to allow the clerks (in consultation with the committee or without objection from a committee member) to approve changes to the templates and information/documentation pages. I imagine that the clerks will then create a streamlined process to approve improvements that are consistent with the procedure.
I suppose we could make that change to the procedures ( here is draft language that would've been part of the overall DS motion) now instead of waiting for the next updates on the DS process, which would probably shave a few months off of that (which once again is mostly my fault). Whether to make this change (which should be fairly uncontroversial) now or wait until a broader package is up to my fellow arbs. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:08, 16 March 2022 (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 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | → | 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 Tgeorgescu at 14:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Nationalist editors, who only defend one side of the story should be indeffed or topic banned on the spot. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh jeez. The number of times over the years, I've come across nationalism being pushed (successfully sometimes) in areas of the project. What's being asked for in this ARCA, has the potential to open up a barrel of worms. GoodDay ( talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
As tempting as it is, this is not practical. WP:DE is already policy and WP:TEND already exists and if arbitrators had a magic wand that would make enforcing those easy and straightforward without collateral damage, they would have waved it already. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:09, 23 December 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.
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 GeneralNotability at 22:07, 2 January 2022 (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
I ask that ArbCom clarify whether remedy 2 of the Scientology case, " Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is still in effect. As far as I can tell, it is de facto not enforced - this quarry (credit to AntiCompositeNumber for the query) shows that there haven't been rangeblocks mentioning Scientology since 2010, with one individual IP block in 2011 (most were applied in 2009 following the case), and most of the blocks should have expired in 2014 since they were set for five-year durations. Further, the IP ranges assigned to the Church of Scientology have changed since the case; the church owns ASNs 7914 and 25823 (credit to wizzito for identifying the relevant ASNs) and none of the ranges owned by those ASNs are currently blocked. Blocking these IPs to enforce the remedy is trivial, but I believe ArbCom should consider whether this remedy is still necessary to prevent disruption. Given that the bans expired years ago but we have not seen significant disruption, I'm inclined to say that it is not (and that our normal community processes, like COIN, should be enough to contain disruption if it should resume in the future), but I've got no problem with applying the blocks if the Committee believes they are necessary. I just don't like being in this in-between state of "remedy is on the books but is not being enforced".
Actually, looking at the query linked, the last 2 IPs blocked for Scientology reasons were 216.60.18.40 (registered to the Bank of Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma; blocked 1 month in November 2018) and 138.130.234.8 (registered to Telstra Internet in Sydney, Australia; blocked 24 hours June 2018). 92.37.9.164 (registered to A1 in Ljubljana, Slovenia) was the last block mentioning this ArbCom decision. Neither of these are registered to Scientology. wizzito | say hello! 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a bit more than this, but overall, my point is that this rule is outdated and these IPs barely edit or don't at all (at least anonymously, I'd 100 percent support a checkuser for some of these ranges) wizzito | say hello! 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've been an active watcher (and sometimes reverter) at the top level Scientology article. I think that there is still some more wiki-saavy efforts by them there but the old IP protection is probably not needed or relevant. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:02, 5 January 2022 (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.
Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.
Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 11:30, 7 January 2022 (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 BilledMammal at 04:06, 3 January 2022 (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
I ask that ArbCom clarify whether ECR applies to discussions on RSN regarding sources that are related to the topic area, broadly construed
. If it does, I ask ArbCom to also clarify related to the topic area, broadly construed
in this context, and whether non-ECP editors are allowed to comment regarding the reliability of the source for uses outside of topics covered by ECR.
This clarification request was prompted by two discussions at RSN,
Jewish Chronicle and
CounterPunch. Both had considerable involvement from socks and non-ECP editors, and during a
close review of the former where the question of ECR was raised the closer stated I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.
related to the topic area, broadly construedfor ECR to apply?" If the response to this is "yes", the follow up clarification requests to this would be "How is "sufficiently" determined?" and, given the need to not disenfranchise users from participating in discussions, "How do we handle the participation of non-ECP editors in such discussions?". BilledMammal ( talk) 05:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Opabinia regalis I don't believe there is anything unusual about those two RFC's that would result in broader than usual input. I also believe you are right about a large number of non-ECP editors being unusual; I took a look at a recent RFC with decent participation, RfC: The Daily Wire, and was unable to identify any !votes from non-ECP editors, though it is possible that I overlooked them. I also took a look at a recent RFC with !votes from multiple socks, RfC: The Canary, and found that of the unbanned !voters, four were non-ECP at the time of the RFC. BilledMammal ( talk) 07:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Beeblebrox and BDD; based your comments about how it currently functions, I believe there will be a number of RFC's at RSN that will need to be reclosed, including but not limited to The Canary and CounterPunch. However, while I understand the difficulty in providing a precise definition, I would ask that you comment on two ambiguous examples so that we have a baseline to refer to. Specifically, would ECR apply to an RFC on CNN (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, but discussions about its reliability do not tend to involve ECR topics) and an RFC on Al Jazeera (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, and discussions about its reliability do tend to involve ECR topics). I would assume that it doesn't apply to the former and that it does apply to the latter, but I would appreciate formal clarification on this, particularly if I am incorrect.
Finally, I would note without raising a question that this would appear to mean that ECR also applies to RM's that have an impact both inside and outside ECR areas, such as this one (ECR not applied at the time, two blocked socks, one unblocked IP). BilledMammal ( talk) 05:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As regards Arbpia related matters, I am almost sure that the intention has been to disallow unqualified editors from participating in formal discussions, see this ARCA, the usual procedure being to strike any comments made. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Bobfrombrockley: The case is not about those three RFCs specifically but the more general question of whether participation is permitted at noticeboards if the matter under discussion is related to matters where ecp applies (not just Arbpia). As several have said, "broadly construed" would be a case by case issue decided at the time of/before/after a discussion so I don't think there is any retrospective declaration here. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Part 5B(1) of the ARBPIA General Sanctions says
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 in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. (my emphasis)
Since RSN is a noticeboard, non-ec editors are not allowed to engage in ARBPIA-related discussion there. Zero talk 13:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, OR, the number of socks and non-ec editors taking part in those discussions was exceptional even by ARBPIA standards. It is reasonable to ask why but I have no evidence to offer. Zero talk 13:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, you write that e-c restrictions are "not to disenfranchise users from participating in discussions", but the part of the ARBPIA General Sanctions that I put in bold are intended to keep non-ec editors out of formal discussions. They are necessary because otherwise RfCs, RMs, etc, are overrun by IPs and SPAs. It can't be controlled by anti-disruption methods, because it isn't obviously disruptive. (Imagine if 10 IPs show up and all !vote the same way. Can an uninvolved admin decide to remove them all? On what grounds?) They can still participate in informal talk-page discussion. These rules are a blessing for the smooth running of the ARBPIA area and I really really hope you don't consider changing them. Zero talk 13:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I was notified but I'm not sure exactly what the question is here. If the issue is my statement during review of the Jewish Chronicle RfC (I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.
), my issue was not whether ECR can apply to RSN discussions in the abstract (I understand that it can), the issue is whether it applies to the RfC in question. Rarely do RfCs say "is X source reliable for articles in Y topic area". The Jewish Chronicle one was marked asking with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam
, although the consensus I found was for the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians
. Some editors commented on the reliability more generally, and not just limited to these areas. So are non-EC editors prohibited from commenting here? If so, who makes that call? I don't know if it's appropriate for a non-admin closer to unilaterally decide whether an administrative ruling applies in order to disenfranchise certain editors in these circumstances. I will note that there was severe sockpuppet disruption in that RfC (6 sockpuppets), but all were above EC.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I participated in the CounterPunch, Canary and Jewish Chronicle RfCs. If I understand the discussion here correctly, the argument is that because these discussions fall within the ARBPIA area, only extended confirmed editors should participate. My strong view is that these three RfCs extended far beyond the ARBPIA area. In relation to CounterPunch, the discussion was sparked by the use of a CounterPunch article (which was written by a non-expert and included several factual errors) as a source for facts about international law in the article Alex Saab, which has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine/Israel. While some of the currently contentious uses of it broadly relate to Palestine/Israel (e.g. Sara Roy, Alan Dershowitz) most of its uses on Wikipedia are totally unrelated, and the examples used to argue for unreliability/deprecation in the RfC related to vaccinations, 9/11, Xinjiang, the Holodomor, Holocaust denial, etc. Similarly, in The Canary discussion (there were actually several discussions in a row, all with overwhelming consensus against reliability), examples of unreliable reporting raised related to the NHS, Syria, RussiaGate, harassment of journalists in Nicaragua and many other issues. The Jewish Chronicle discussion was framed as "Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam", none of which are Israel/Palestine. The examples of unreliability raised related to the British Labour Party and not to the Middle East. In conclusion, I see no reason to retrospectively declare these discussions under the ARBPIA category. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Beyond the problem with explaining how brand new accounts or ones that mysteriously only show up to vote on occasion find a discussion on RSN, the fact that it is I/P users heavily socking in these discussions should inform one as to why these should be covered. In the discussions Bob brings up, Icewhiz (5 IW socks in CP, 4 in the JC discussion) and NoCal100 (1 sock each) socks formed a huge chunk of the votes in favor of deprecation for CP ( or maintaining reliability for the Jewish Chronicle. Why might that be? Beyond the obvious seeking to impact a restricted topic area. And in these discussions, where a handful of users can have a huge impact, see for example the 15 users in good standing, including the non-EC users who should be discounted, being used to expunge a source across the encyclopedia, we need to have some level of protection against disruption. nableezy - 17:58, 6 January 2022 (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.
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 Atsme at 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The date of Awilley's first topic ban action is July 22 2019 but he modified it July 24, 2019 to cover US only, perhaps because I called an RfC at the only article that is clearly subject of this t-ban, and where I also received an apology for the behavior that resulted in my stated concerns over how I was being treated. As Awilley has said in the past to other editors who reacted defensively to aggressive editors, we need to grow thicker skin. A few of the diffs he included involved my attempt to fix the header template at Talk:Fascism because it conflicts with consensus from an RFC, and contradicts the resulting lead of the article, but that topic is not part of my t-ban. He also used diffs for my limited participation in an AfD involving a BLP which may or may not be associated with the topic of my t-ban. I have had very limited participation in that topic area as evidenced in this discussion. Please forgive me, but "backroom deals" don't sit well with me, so I chose to bring my appeal here. It is now January 1, 2022 and the topic ban has been in place approximately 2-1/2 years for a topic area where I have spent very little time over the past decade as an editor. In fact, an iota of time would be an gargantuan overstatement in comparison to my total edits. I would very much like to start the New Year with a clean slate, and hope ArbCom will agree that it has been long enough.
To satisfy Awilley's requirement, in the future I will try to avoid accusing people of gaslighting. Having said that, I hope we will see the removal of WP:GASLIGHTING from our PAGs in order to avoid future misunderstandings per #4. Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. Examples: denying that you posted what you did, suggesting someone agreed to something they did not, pretending your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, or refusing to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus. As far as controversial topics go, I will take BDD's advice to heart and make IDGAF my friend. Atsme 💬 📧 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, traveling. I've always been willing to lift this ban on the condition that Atsme makes some kind of commitment to remedy the problem that led to this (and the previous) ban. I haven't seen that yet. The last appeal ( June 2021) was kind of the opposite. Summarizing: "Commit to what? There is no problem. Others were the problem. You're the problem.") I'd be happy to see this ban lifted if Atsme simply said she'd try harder to follow the 2019 promise referenced below by StarshipPaint. ~ Awilley ( talk) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Adding: for anyone unfamiliar with the history, this started with my closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Atsme this appeal, which rescinded Atsme's topic ban for the whole of American Politics. Based on comments in the admin section, my close included a warning that "backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban will result in further sanctions". Less than 4 months later I saw these edits [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] accusing 4 different editors of, among other things, "gaslighting" and POV pushing. That seemed a clear case of backsliding, but instead of restoring the full AP2 topic ban, I imposed a very narrow ban for Anti-Fascism (ANTIFA).
I'll avoid any further defense of the legitimacy of the ban. I think that was settled in previous appeals. Nov 2019 Nov 2020
@ North8000: I'm not insisting on a full re-commitment to the 2019 promises specifically. I just want to see some kind of commitment to do better. I'd settle for something as simple as "In the future I'll try to avoid accusing people of gaslighting." This is how I approach all appeals. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@
Atsme: will you recommit to your 2019 position?
[7] if I ever find myself participating in the AP2 topic area again I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind, will answer questions if asked and will maintain my customary polite demeaner at all times. If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas. I have also read the essays
WP:WORLDSEND,
WP:DGAF, and
WP:LETITGO and have taken them to heart.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 08:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@
Atsme: I'll understand that as a 'yes', so I support lifting the sanctions, as Atsme has recommitted her intentions. From this, either all is well, or this is
WP:ROPE. Anyway, I just saw that Awilley hasn't edited at all in December, so we might not hear from him here soon.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 07:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
whatever "backsliding" meansoverall statement. So, the history, topic banned for [8]
filibustering and dominating discussions without bringing them forward(2018), effectively commits not to bludgeon (2019, see above), but did bludgeon in the 2020 Fox News RfC (this is a clear example from the link to the discussion itself even if diffs are not provided), that's backsliding. Atsme - defensiveness over that RfC, or defensiveness over Bishonen's statements, are not helpful. What would be more helpful to your case - 1) acknowledge that the 2020 Fox News RfC bludgeoning was problematic in the context of your 2018 topic ban and your 2019 commitment, and 2) clearly re-commit (like 2019) to not repeating this behaviour (of 2020). starship .paint ( exalt) 14:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor and not an Arb, since I have a fairly strong personal opinion on the matter and am the main author on Anti-fascism. As a practical point, this sanction is no longer needed. Its been over two years. Anti-fascism in the US is no longer the spicy hot-button issue it was a few years back. Atsme notes that she is not usually involved in these sort of topics. Even at the time she made a well worded appeal. I understand there is some hesitance to remove a ban because the editor wants a clean slate. But I think we should be more aware of the impacts of sanctions. We may have high ideals about turning the other cheek and being magnanimous, but our editors are still just people. Having inapplicable or unjust sanctions applying to them years later decreases editor morale and editor retention. Lift Atsme's ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I won't oppose or support Atsme's article ban appeal. But since at least one arb (
Primefac) has shown interest in the larger question of her 2019 new year's promises to do better in the area of American politics, I'll offer a brief history of the fate of these promises, and also point to her apparent unwillingness to explicitly reaffirm them here. These were
some very strong and sincere-sounding promises which led to her indefinite AP2 topic ban being lifted in March 2019 and which are partly quoted by
Starship.paint above. Atsme's
reply to Starship.paint's question about recommitting to the promises seems quite evasive. It consists only of a diff from July 2019 meant as a "demonstrative answer" (?), and the statement that I have always taken and will continue to take my commitments seriously.
The diff does not mention those promises or their content. It seems irrelevant to Starship.paint's question, and I'm quite surprised Starship.paint 'understands it as a yes'. I wonder if Primefac and the other arbs understand it so too.
Atsme has not always taken those commitments seriously. By August 2020, she had comprehensively backslid (in my opinion) from them, and when this was pointed out by a regular user,
[9] she showed no interest in reaffirming the commitments or even acknowledging them.
[10] Indeed, she aggressively blew off the regular user with "I don't need you dancing atop a 2 year action [this refers to her t-ban from American politics] that was questionable from the get-go. Stop dredging up the past"
and impugned their motives. The way she absconded from her promises and resented being reminded of them alarmed me, and I posted a warning in my admin role,
[11] reminding her that they were what got her topic ban lifted and giving specifics about current problems that I perceived. A striking recent example then was the way she had bludgeoned the Fox News RFC in the summer of 2020, posting some 75 times in it — quite the contrast to the 2019 undertaking "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas"
. I urged her to re-read her old appeal and start living up to her old promises, or I would consider reinstating the AP2 topic ban. She made no reply. Perhaps the arbs want to consider whether they'd like a clearer reply from Atsme to the question above about reaffirming her promises.
Bishonen |
tålk 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
I don't think my opinion will matter much but I would support the appeal. This isn't an appeal to lift a general politics tban, but a narrow sub-set tban. Atsme has shown that they aren't a problem in the broader topic space which should be all the evidence we need to say that this ban is no longer needed to protect Wikipedia. Politics, especially in the last year has been particularly divisive yet we don't have clear evidence of any backsliding. I know Bishonen noted the concerns of another editor. It's worth noting the editor was involved in the topic area and several topics with Atsme herself vs an uninvolved editor trying to raise a helpful concern. We are over a year later and two and a half years after the general AP ban was lifted. It seems like it's increasingly difficult to view this tban as needed to protect Wikipedia. Springee ( talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment for those who are opposing the removal, what harm are we protecting here? The purpose of tbans etc is specifically to protect Wikipedia. What harm is likely to come if this is removed? I think that Bishonen's comments have given editors real concern but should they? I see two basic concerns, the first being replies to Soibangla, the second being replies to the Fox RfC. Above I mentioned the concerns other editors have expressed with the way Soibangla has interacted with others. Atsme's replies to what look like battleground comments directed at Atsme look blunt but restrained. The Fox RfC did have a lot of comments but it was a VERY long RfC [26]. This RfC had 63 citations, ~650 signed edits and was active for a month and a half (7 June to 21 July). I counted 67 signed comments by Atsme in that RfC. Quite a few editors were well into the double digits. Many of Atsme's edits were back and forth discussions rather than an editor individually challenging every editor who opposed Atsme's POV which is typically where we raise the bludgeoning concern. They weren't a bunch of uncivil comments, most seem quite congenial even in disagreement. Yes, 67 is a lot but when looking at the total size and But when we look at the total length and breadth of the discussion this isn't the bludgeoning the raw number makes it appear to be. So after 2.5 years of very contentious politics this is all the evidence we have to refuse to lift a narrow topic band? Again, are we actually protecting Wikipedia? If people really are that concerned I think WTT's probationary period is a good compromise. Springee ( talk) 15:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I came here to support this, but now I'd like to see an answer to Bishonen's statement. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I was highly reluctant to participate in this discussion, but Atsme's assertion that I wrongfully accused me of a BLP vio, obviously in retaliation for this incident
is flatly false and is indicative of an unrelenting vendetta that Atsme is attempting to project upon me. I find Atsme incorrigible and if it were up to me Atsme would have been permanently banned from AP2 years ago. I cannot fathom why Atsme has been given so many passes for persistently bad behavior. And I fully anticipate that I will be targeted for retribution for coming right out and saying it. Bring it.
soibangla (
talk) 15:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to hear Atsme's response to Awilley's request. Unlike starship.paint, I don't take her response as a yes, and I'd prefer something more clearcut. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't follow AP so consider this a kibitzer opinion. A request to remove a ban should be crisp and clear. It should recognize why the ban was imposed and clearly state what the editor will do to ensure that the particular behavior is not repeated. I don't see that here. starship.paint's question, for example, required a pro-forma "yes, yes, yes,..." response but, instead, we get a two year old diff that is a non-answer (especially in the light of later diffs from Bishonen). The Opabinia regalis question also required a straightforward answer (this, this, this, or some combination of the three) but, instead, we get a long meandering response with a pointer to an essay (with a, less than encouraging, reference to "admin cabals") and an AfD, neither of which actually answer the questions. Frankly, the topic ban itself seems so limited that it hardly seems to matter whether it stays or goes but, procedurally, it would be nice to see clear statements from the requester and I'm puzzled as to why Atsme seems to not want to be direct in their responses. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 13:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. 2 1/2 years is enough. Regarding the possible commitment in question, it is a very long post with at least a half dozen interpret-able conditions and a minefield for anybody to commit to. About the only way to fulfill the multiple possible interpretations of those half dozen commitments would be near-zero participation. A better merge would be saying zero drama in that area (with near-zero participation being the only way to safe way to fulfill all interpretations of that)for 6 months. After that they would just have the same scrutiny that all editors have. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Cool and sounds very reasonable. I was just pointing out the issues of going by that particular post and why one would be hesitant to commit to it. North8000 ( talk) 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Suggest clarification. After 12 months and if all goes well, is it all over, or go back to a full ban or require another discussion/decision here? North8000 ( talk) 22:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Atsme previously appealed this topic ban unsuccessfully at WP:AE in November 2020 ( link). I don't see that she's mentioned or linked that appeal. One reviewing admin described it as "large amounts of text disclaiming any responsibility on the grounds that everything is some other users' fault". Little seems to have changed, despite the passage of time.
It's common for appeals to contain red flags, but this appeal consists of nothing but red flags: re-litigation of the original ban, no acknowledgement of its rationale, no convincing insight or commitment to change, no real argument beyond time-served, and a lengthy list of grievances. It's quintessential WP:NOTTHEM and bad-faith wikilawyering. I mean, she's soup-spitting you guys about the term "backsliding". Come on.
As usual, debate here focuses on the rights of the sanctioned user. Those affected by her behavior—their voices are largely silent here, their time and experience accorded basically zero value in your deliberations. You guys can pat yourselves on the back, quote the-quality-of-mercy speech and WP:ROPE, and pretend that there's no cost to lifting these sorts of sanctions, because there is no cost to you, and because your empathy extends only to the sanctioned user. It's like letting a wolf loose in a henhouse and then congratulating yourselves on your kindness to animals.
As others have pointed out, Atsme's AP2 topic ban was lifted in response to vague commitments to do better, commitments which were promptly ignored and exposed as toothless. It was foolish and irresponsible to have lifted that topic ban in the absence of any insight or reason to think the underlying behavior would change. But doing the same thing again—as you seem to be considering here—would be outright administrative malpractice. MastCell Talk 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The amendment is requested to You are indefinitely topic banned from Anti fascism in the United States, broadly construed.
I fail to see, how under even the broadest of construals, the RfC about the reliability of Fox News has anything to do with Antifa in the US.
Template:Warning Fascism left-wing was the issue of concern there. The title of that template shouldn't be of much concern since that's not visible to readers. The text of that template has been stable since
Jimbo Wales 14 June 2021 edit (I synced it with the current version of the article). There is no reason to maintain sanctions over that. This sanction seems to be (mostly) about Atsme's use of the term "gaslighting". Some background on that.
MrX, who at the time was actively editing the
Donald Trump bio,
created several related shortcuts on 22 June 2018, and boldly
amended the Wikipedia:Gaming the system behavioral guideline by adding "Employing
gaslighting tactics by using misdirection, repetition, contradiction, and off-topic rambling to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord. Example: Repeatedly complaining about bias in the press or clickbait to undermine reliable sources, while ignoring requests to stay on topic.
" with edit summary "Happy to discuss on talk if anyone disagrees with this." This was apparently in preparation for the
American politics 2 amendment request he filed on 28 June 2018 (just 6 days later), in which he accused Atsme of Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources (
WP:GASLIGHTING)
. AWilley did not approve of this term, as he filed a
redirect for discussion stating This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect.
Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse.
but there was no consensus to delete the term, and today the target says Employing
gaslighting tactics – such as history
re-writing, reality
denial,
misdirection, baseless
contradiction,
projection of one's own foibles onto others,
repetition, or
off-topic rambling – to
destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord.
I'm wondering why we've sanctioned an editor for using a term for which there was no consensus to delete and which still is used on a behavioral guideline page, and if this is sanctionable, was
MrX ever sanctioned for accusing Atsme of gaslighting?
wbm1058 (
talk) 23:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
put a "provisional" clause on the removal, that an uninvolved administrator can return it and if none have after 12 months it is completely removed.Aren't uninvolved administrators always authorized to place discretionary sanctions where allowed – for new instances of sanctionable behavior, even if the sanction is identical to a previously expired or repealed sanction that was imposed for an old instance of sanctionable behavior? – without needing any enabling "clause" – and would removal of the "clause" after 12 months then have the effect of prohibiting the imposition of sanctions for new instances of sanctionable behavior? wbm1058 ( talk) 16:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The primary meaning of backsliding, according to Wikipedia, is a term used within Christianity to describe a process by which an individual who has converted to Christianity reverts to pre-conversion habits and/or lapses or falls into sin... the backslidden individual is in danger of eventually going to Hell if he does not repent. I don't care for the use of this term with its negative religious connotations in conversations about behavior on Wikipedia. Ideally, I'd like to see both terms "backsliding" and "gaslighting" removed from the vocabulary of behavioral discussions on Wikipedia. – wbm1058 ( talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend Atsme provide a direct and concise response to the arbs and Awilley and then just avoid AP articles and issues altogether. No one can fix those places, especially in this political climate. So it better to find places in the pedia that allow one to have some fun and avoid some folks with serious mental and emotional issues.-- MONGO ( talk) 16:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there anything actually added by the provisional nature of the motion below? Cant any uninvolved admin already re-impose a topic ban as a DS if they feel it required, AP2 still being a topic area covered by DS? Just seems like a distinction without a difference in lifting the ban and the way it is worded below. nableezy - 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Possibly moot, but IMO reasonable editors who are on the more-conservative side than the average editor ought to be valued for what they can offer, even if considering their pov sometimes feels frustrating, because considering their pov is necessary for arriving at NPOV. When only one or two people are arguing for something, it can look like disruption and feel like it to those who are in the majority politically. That doesn't mean we should treat it as disruptive. It might just mean we need to pry open our own minds and that we should think about that possibility.
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.
Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
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 Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Please replace the 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without needing to go through AFC. This will reduce the number of articles I can create a year from 52 to 12 but will mean I can create them directly however we should also consider allowing me to create a specified number of civil parishes for the parishes project, there are 407 left as well as allowing appeal every 6 months. There are also a number of other suggestions I have made here. Several editors at the last appeal said they would be happy with allowing 1 article a week with no AFC but I don't think we need to allow 1 article a week on anything, it should probably only be 1 article a month but as noted a specified number of civil parishes for the project could be specified such as 1 article a month on anything and 1 parish 1 week etc so as noted it could just be 1 article every 3 months or 1 article every 6 months as long as the AFC requirement is removed. As noted before I have had very few articles declined at AFC. Please specify which options and what creation limits you accept even if its only 1 article a year, example, 1 article a month, 1 parish a week, appeal after 6 months.
There remains NPP, and anything odd is likely to be noticed there, as many of the same people work both. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
As a somewhat experienced AfC reviewer I'll chime in to respond to
Beeblebrox. AfC is extremely cluttered. The backlog is currently at 2516 pending submissions, with the oldest submissions requiring review being 2-3 months old. This is actually relatively good, as the backlog can sometimes reach to 5 months worth of articles. It's not unusual for editors to have to wait for months to get a review at AfC. This makes it an unbearable process for a lot of people, since by the time an article actually gets reviewed many people don't care anymore. Arbs should also consider the impact on AfC from these restrictions. If the restrictions are necessary to prevent disruption (I am unfamiliar with this user), so be it, but AfC submissions do require volunteer time & effort to review above that of
WP:NPP.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding consensus for parish articles, the answer seems to be that there is currently no such consensus. The most recent relevant discussions I can find are:
As someone who in 2016-17 created articles for many of the missing parishes in Cumbria (a whole batch had been deleted as the creations of a blocked editor, I think), I support the idea that every civil parish in England should be represented in Wikipedia, whether as a stand-alone article or as a clear description/section within the article on the settlement whose name it shares. Parishes have population figures available from census info on NOMIS, mostly they have a parish council or parish meeting which has a website or a mention on the county's website, their history is sometimes of interest and available from Visions of Britain, etc. But I confess that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC was just TLDR, hence my lack of input there. As for the Missing Parishes project, I chipped in at User:Crouch,_Swale/Missing_parishes_(1)#Cumbria, and that set of lists of county-by-county missing parishes seems a useful starting point for creation of useful articles. So without commenting on the overall question of Crouch's restrictions, I support allowing at least a slightly more generous allowance for the creation of parish articles. Pam D 18:57, 5 January 2022 (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.
Can you clearly articulate why you think [your restrictions exist]?As for the second question, I am not interested in what you think the "several" arbitrators said last time. Let me try asking the question a different way to see if that helps you understand what my second question was asking:
What behavior can you show or what promises can you give that the behavior which earned you the restrictions in the first place will not be repeated?Izno ( talk) 22:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible. Is there community consensus that these topics are all notable enough for standalone articles? If so, then I don't see much harm in the proposed changes; if someone's had consistent success through AfC we can reasonably say they're likely to continue. But it also seems like this change won't get to your stated goals any faster, so I'm not quite sure I get it. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions."Have you done so? – bradv 🍁 19:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Sorry for the multiple revisions, please see above. I think we want CS to have the ability to use his sandbox/userspace/etc to make sure his articles are ready for primetime. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (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 El C at 15:46, 6 February 2022 (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
I hate this template so much! Erm, as you may or may not know, there has been a resurgence in disruption pertaining to Turkey and Turkic peoples (especially Turkish people) lately, at times with the Armenian genocide as its nexus, other times with a less modern historical focus ( Ottoman Empire and earlier), especially vis-à-vis Iranian peoples (esp. Persians).
There are 4 threads related to these topics at WP:ANI right now (permalinks: #Abrvagl, #Arvinahmadi1994, #37.111.218.179, #WP:NOTHERE_by_Mountain_gora), which is on the high end of normal. At a (2nd) glance, these all appear to be disparate individuals and related sub/topics.
Anyway, the WP:KURDS, WP:AA2, and to a lesser extent WP:ARBIRP DSs, provide a lot of overlapping coverage (coverage which isn't the easiest to navigate, but it's aiight), except when they don't. Maybe it's time for some creative stuff? And things? I dunno. Thanks for indulging me! El_C 15:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm questioning the coherence of some of the above, so I'll put it another way. Two likely things would happen to a Western Asian disruptive account that isn't blatant enough for a simple WP:DE-block. Either their disruption will become prolific enough that they'll get a siteban or equivalent at AN/ANI (which is often hard to come by due to lack of familiarity with the subject matter by the average reviewer of these noticeboards). Or, eventually, they'll run afoul of the existing DSs. Sometime, they become productive contributors, lest we forget that does happen, though unfortunately not as often.
Basically, I'm concerned with the attrition faced by our veteran contributors who regularly edit these topics. Honestly, I don't really know what to do. I originally just wanted a better alert system that accounted/connected these to the other non-ARBPIA Western Asian DSs, but I'm not sure that it can be done under the current system without having a blanket Western Asia of all/most eras DS, which doesn't seem too feasible (or desirable).
The point is that, to me, it feels like the bleed in this area has become near constant. So now I put it out there, FWIW. El_C 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't Turkey and the Ottoman Empire fall under Eastern Europe and the Balkans? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:15, 6 February 2022 (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 Shrike at 19:10, 19 February 2022 (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
First of all, I don't seek sanctions for anyone so it's not an appeal on the recent AE case [28] but rather a clarification. Here are my questions:
@ Dennis Brown: Thank you for your answer, But here removal was of recent material so it has nothing to do with age the user removed twice the name of the countries the first removal was edit the second is a revert Shrike ( talk) 20:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
In the case given, one revert was obvious, the other was removing some unrelated material in a different part of the article. 1RR doesn't mean you can do normal editing, which can be adding or removing material. As I said in AE (and I will expand on), my understanding is there needs to be some kind of link, although not directly.
There are others, those are just the most obvious. But if you have reverted once in 24 hours, saying that NO material may be removed or changed would essentially mean that once you have reverted something, you can't edit for 24 hours at the risk of making minor changes that someone will see as "reverting material added previously". I don't think 1RR is meant to be overarching and onerous as to prevent the normal editing of articles. It's only meant to prevent disruption. How old does material need to be before removing it isn't really a "revert"? I don't have a number, but I can tell when it is soon enough to count under 1RR, and not every removal of prose is a "revert".
As to "get a pass", that doesn't really apply here, and that isn't so much a matter of the policy as the judgement of the admin enforcing Arbitration areas. Admin are given great latitude in handling these cases, within the boundaries of WP:ADMINACCT. El C closed it, and I didn't see his close as a "pass". The solution to every problem isn't always the ban hammer anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Shrike, to reiterate what I said at AE, whether this (replacing something with something else vs removing that thing outright) was a violation may well end up being subject to admin interpretation where one's mileage may vary. As mentioned, I wouldn't have counted this as a violation, though it technically may be one. A different admin might see it different.
As I noted to
Dennis Brown [refactor], my understanding is that 1RR follows the mechanic of 3RR: whether involving the same or different material.
But I [also added how I] can understand wanting to omit that to lessen the gotcha/stumble factor somewhat.
Shrike, about the "free pass": in my view, even if self-reverting would no longer be possible, it's still advisable to raise the matter with the user all the same (XYT). The goal is to foster best practices through good faith dialogue, not have a tit-for-tat of... I dunno that time their side got a free pass but this time ours didn't, and so on. El_C 19:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with El_C that "whether involving the same or different material
" applies to 1RR. The problem is more that "revert" is not itself defined precisely, and the definition as such does not always match the motivation of slowing down edit wars.
It should be expected at AE that editors are given the chance to self-revert 1RR violations before being reported. However, editors should not be able to use this right as a way to make repeated risk-free reverts, only self-reverting when asked to. Everyone should have an allowance for honest mistakes, but only a limited allowance.
Speaking as the third admin who commented on the request in question; I agree entirely with Zero0000 below. 1RR certainly applies to different content, but determining what constitutes a revert can sometimes be tricky. With respect to sanction enforcement, what becomes important is the effect and perceived intent of the edit. Gaming of 1RR, and slow edit-warring, is usually easy to spot; it didn't seem to be a part of the motivation here. That's why I was not supportive of a sanction; not because users get a free pass if they aren't given a chance to self-revert. As such I don't see anything for ARBCOM to clarify here, unless Shrike is directly appealing the AE decision, which they say they're not. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (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.
appeal the dismissalof an AE thread to ARCA, but it looks like you've explicitly disclaimed such a path (
I don't seek sanctions for anyone). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:50, 20 February 2022 (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 BDD ( talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 02:02, 27 February 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 Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles: [30] and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Barkeep49, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
BDD, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.
In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
WormTT, I will be more careful in which sources I use in the topic area. DS is also in effect now so any disruption by anyone, and that person can be brought to enforcement and the problem will be settled there quickly. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (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.
Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:55, 20 March 2022 (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 Newslinger at 04:12, 16 March 2022 (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
In the
2021 discretionary sanctions review and on
Template talk:Ds, several suggestions have been proposed to improve how
discretionary sanctions are communicated to editors. This clarification amendment request seeks to bring four of these suggestions to the Arbitration Committee for consideration and implementation.
{{
Ds/aware}}
template on your user talk page.
{{
Ds/aware}}
template on your user talk page and specifying in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about.
topic_code
parameter must be set in {{
Ds/aware}} for the opt-out to take effectThank you for your consideration. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Though Newslinger and myself have only discussed points 1-3, via the discussion at Template talk:Ds, I do support all four raised here.
Specifically for point four, I know that when I first became involved in editing in a DS topic area, I found it difficult to understand what exactly the extra restrictions were. The guide at WP:ACDS opens with a set of definitions, and the information that would be applicable to most editors; the guidance for editors section, is not summarised in a lead or otherwise obviously signposted either on that page, or in the Ds/alert template.
@
Izno: with respect to
WP:BOLD and requiring an amendment/clarification, there's a content note/warning on the template page that reads This template is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, as one of its associated enforcement processes. Therefore, you must not make significant changes to the wording or functionality of this template without the committee's consent. Thank you!
Given the presence of this, neither of us felt it was appropriate for us to make the changes unilaterally.
One question before I finish, if I need to reply here again, is there a word limit here similar to that of arbitration case requests? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this case is anything like the DS Aware Template discussion that took place on May 13, 2019 and passed. I received this notice advising me of same. I have a permanent template at the top of my UTP, and so do others (admins and editors alike), so if an editor shows up at your page to post a DS notice, it triggers a message saying the editor is already aware. Is there something different about this case that I'm not understanding? I'm not all that savvy if it involves programming or technical changes. If it's about having the ability to totally opt out without needing a notice on our UTP, then count me as a support as long as notice in edit view of DS articles and in the TP header. Atsme 💬 📧 02:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Newslinger - thx for your suggestions and explanation. Just wanted you to see this diff. When an editor attempts to post a DS alert on my TP, it triggers a filter that lists all DS of which I'm aware, if not all (or at least it's supposed to trigger it as the diff demonstrates). Atsme 💬 📧 05:04, 17 March 2022 (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.
Speaking personally: All the changes you suggest sound good to me. I think Change #4 is definitely going to happen – the DS draft that was circulated internally last year has one, and my sense is the addition of a lead is pretty popular with the rest of the committee. Changes #1-3 are changes to the templates, which definitely could use some attention. Formally, the templates seem to require ArbCom majorities to change (even though in practice oftentimes arbs/others make BOLD edits). One of my top DS reform priorities is changing that to allow the clerks (in consultation with the committee or without objection from a committee member) to approve changes to the templates and information/documentation pages. I imagine that the clerks will then create a streamlined process to approve improvements that are consistent with the procedure.
I suppose we could make that change to the procedures ( here is draft language that would've been part of the overall DS motion) now instead of waiting for the next updates on the DS process, which would probably shave a few months off of that (which once again is mostly my fault). Whether to make this change (which should be fairly uncontroversial) now or wait until a broader package is up to my fellow arbs. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)