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 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | 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 Shrike at 17:26, 15 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
This regarding following from WP:PIA
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
Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [1] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen [2] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/ WP:ANI/ WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE
Please see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in.
However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zero talk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zero talk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here.
Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [13] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [14] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry. This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
For the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:32, 20 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.
However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.(emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
All registered users are welcome to comment on requests not covered by extended confirmation requirements.I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. — Wug· a·po·des 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles(to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
All users are welcome to comment on requests.to
All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate ECR.or some such is closer to what I would recommend. Explicitly, I think this should not be at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. -- Izno ( talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed restrictions apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at
Arbitration Enforcement when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header is modified by replacing All users are welcome to comment on requests.
with All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an
extended-confirmed restriction).
Internal project discussions include[...]noticeboard discussions (including arbitration enforcement).— Wug· a·po·des 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). Listing one restriction like ECR seems to imply that no other restrictions are in effect, whereas in fact if you are e.g. topic banned you can't comment unless an exemption applies. Have also copyedited the motion slightly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures ( Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Extended confirmed restriction) are amended by appending at the end the following list item:
E. Uninvolved administrators may in specific cases grant an exception to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a specific internal project discussion.
E. Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ( WP:AE), notwithstanding this restriction.
The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
- Arbitration enforcement noticeboard
Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow an editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ( WP:AE) notwithstanding any restrictions that would have otherwise prevented the editor from participating (such as the extended confirmed restriction).
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 Mythdon at 04:52, 11 April 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 have a question as to whether the restrictions listed here are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed here and here) has expired.
Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following this discussion. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was blocked indefinitely shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said here "To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)" (the topic ban listed here here had already been imposed by that time).
I was unblocked in 2012 and back in 2016, I appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN, which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed here?
Based on to run under the current restrictions and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that to run under the current restrictions meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here.
It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation?
— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 April 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.
Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.
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 Ypatch at 03:49, 16 May 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
Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping) sanctioned me with a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page. I think Vanamonde is a good admin, and I do take responsibility for my flaws as an editor: I could have tried harder to put myself in the other’s shoes, could have tried harder to debate from a more objective perspective instead of nickpicking fallacies or flaws from counter arguments. I have since taken time off from Iranian politics, and really don’t plan to get involved with debating with anyone again or editing on this topic. I would just like to, from time to time, be able to comment on some talk page discussions. I do know a lot about this subject, and think I could help clarify some points citing the literature I’m familiar with, etc. That is what this request is about.
@
Barkeep49: Apologies: as RP said, I've been travelling, with infrequent internet and little time. I sanctioned Ypatch essentially for displaying a battleground attitude. Before granting an appeal I would want to see evidence that going forward they will be able to engage constructively with users they disagree with within this contentious area. I haven't the time to evaluate whether that's the case, and am happy to leave that to ARBCOM's discretion. I do apologize for not filing the right forms logging the sanction; I do recognize the need for it. Best,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, appeals
at AE and
at AN have occurred. As I
noted on my talk page in March, my reading of
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § sanctions.appeals is that further consideration is only allowed here, at ARCA. A strict reading of the text seems to imply that Vanamonde93 is unable to lift the sanction even if they wished, given that it has moved beyond the first stage (
Sdrqaz (
talk) 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC); struck 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
"ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision"
), and, for that matter, the second.
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 Jayron32 at 13:16, 26 May 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
There was a recent ANI case that centered around ambiguity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts. After some acrimony, the case was solved sufficiently, so I am not naming any parties for this request for clarification, though any commentary from anyone involved with that discussion would be welcome. One of the tangential issues that came up related to some ambiguity of the DS awareness and alert system regarding the 12-month time limit, especially in regards to notifying users who are not active in the area-of-dispute they are being alerted for. The user in question had done some editing back in January in the area, but had not touched it in the intervening months, and was blindsided by a DS-alert template which confused and confounded them; this led to an argument over the placement of the template, some considerable WP:WIKILAWYERing, and some unnecessary name-calling. Eventually, things calmed down, but not until there had been a lot of drama. I feel like a lot of this could have been avoided if there were some better clarification on the appropriate use of DS-alert templates; specifically when is the use of the template authorized, and more importantly when not. I had mistakenly thought that there was some parameters on when it could be placed, but I can't find anything in the guidance; is it really intended that any user can be notified of, and placed under, DS-alert at any time, regardless of whether or not they are, or have ever been, actively editing in one of the DS-targeted areas? If not, what are the parameters of when it is appropriate to use such an alert? Which is to say, how recently should a person have been editing in the targeted area? The past week? Past month? Past year? Ever? Thanks for your attention to, and clarification of, this issue. -- Jayron 32 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer that all editors be presumed aware if they meet a requirement (eg 500 edits + 30 days). Send out a notice to the talk page of such editors once they qualify explaining that. Then it is only necessary to deal with relatively new editors and they can be covered with the same notification sent manually (by anyone). Maybe this is too simplistic but the current system is dreadful. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
This is very basic, and yes a whole lot of unnecessary drama. The placing of an informational template, which explicitly disclaims any accusation of wrongdoing, is a non-event. A bot should do it, if you have edited in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions you should be informed of the sanctions, full stop. Calling that harassment, when it is one edit giving a required notification, is asinine and borders on gaslighting when coupled with actually harassing claims and insults. If a user has a history, any history, of activity that would merit a trip to AE, including edit-warring or personal attacks, they should be informed of the sanctions. So that if that occurs in the future it may be reported to AE rather than the circus of ANI. And if you do not want a notification, place the freaking awarness template on your talk page. You can do it in a hidden comment and it won't even display the banner. nableezy - 13:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
With due respect to Jayron32, experienced editors are not "blindsided" by receiving DS-alerts. Whether clarifications to the rules are needed, I'm not sure. Perhaps bringing together the disparate bits into one statement would help. However, DS-alerts exist for a good reason and it must not be the case that delivering them is something a good faith editor only undertakes with trepidation. A objective system would be a bot that delivers an alert to any editor who edits a page with a DS template but hasn't received an alert in the past 12 months and doesn't have the DS-aware template. With that system, I will get one every year and that's just fine. Zero talk 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Having thought about this a little more, I would add "and the relevant arbcom ruling has been changed since the last alert notice" to the criteria for a bot-delivered alert. I don't think that would be a good addition for human-delivered alerts though, as it is an unnecessary burden to check. Zero talk 06:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
"They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)", but it's not clear whether a revoked sanction that wasn't appealed fulfills the criterion or not. I doubt there are many sanctions removed without appeal, but there's been at least one, and confusion over the awareness status was a part of this dispute. Can we tweak the criterion to say
"and at least one of such sanctions has not been revoked"? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)"Users
editing these pageswho have edited these pages within the last year may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect."
First of all, thank you to Jayron32 for bringing this here. I closed the ANI thread as the discussion had moved from being productive to having a strong heat>light ratio as an uninvolved editor. For some personal background, I had notified Levivich of a DS alert in 2020 regarding infoboxes here:
[15] as I honestly could not tell if he was aware of the drama that had plagued that topic area. He 'thank'ed me for the notification. The next day, an IP editor with no other few other edits posed a DS-aware template on my talk page:
[16]. I took no offense but I think it is reasonable to assume, based on my participation in the topic area that I was aware, even without the template.
Maybe the template can be softened? It already says, as Nableezy says above, that wrongdoing is not assumed. I intentionally stay away from the hornets' nest that is AMPOL, IPA, PIA, and the other 'alphabet soup' sanction areas. The challenge lies in the wording that an editor must be notified of DS. And I get why- there is extensive precedent that an area has been problematic. These templates, as noted above, are good for new editors that may not be aware of problems. Most established editors who read the dramah areas will be aware without seeing a DS template with the draconian scales of justice on their talk page.
Further clarification is necessary and possible investigation needed on the effectiveness of these templates. Maybe encouraging editors to place the DS-aware template on their talkpage to avoid the drama? The current system is impersonal and sometimes insulting, as seen in the ANI thread. Perhaps loosening the yearly awareness criterion and moving to a one-off? Talk page histories are rarely deleted and it is easy to find the diff of when a notification was sent. We could also have a bot do it, which removes the personal grudges and the HAHA, GOTCHA! nature of these notifications, especially when it comes from one established editor to another.
In sum, my thoughts are:
This is tricky and often a sore spot for editors. Thanks, Jip Orlando ( talk) 14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
While the bot idea sounds promising in theory, in practice it is less so. Many of our discretionary sanctions pages are only considered so due to "broadly construed". While a human editor can make the determination as to whether or not a specific article is within the scope of one or more relevant sanctions, that isn't feasible for bot. In order for a bot to function, lists of articles would need to be created and maintained, one for each sanction area, with new articles added as they are created or at some point enter the scope of a sanction, and others being removed as they are deleted or leave the scope of a sanction. While an alternative to a public facing list might be for the bot to scan/read for a ds/talk notice on an article's talk page, not all articles that are within the scope of a sanction have been tagged as such. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Based on my experience at AE and in DS areas, I think that a one-time notification for a given DS, rather than a yearly notification, seems appropriate for any sanction regime that does not have a built-in sunset date and which has not been amended since the last notification. Now, as I type this, I recognize that cases where the regime has been amended since the last notification could present a thorny edge case, but it would at least have allowed us to dodge this instance of Nableezy v. Levivich. signed, Rosguill talk 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I support Rosgull's proposal for "perma-awareness" once an editor is AWARE of a particular DS area: this would seem to remove the major irritants of the current system, which in my view consist of (i) editors becoming annoyed at new templated reminders after a year has passed (although they are unwilling to template themselves as ds-aware, which would avoid this annoyance, for whatever reason), and (ii) editors evading sanctions thanks to expired awareness templates - the scenario that gives rise to the renewed notifications, which in turn gives rise to (i).
It seems to me that the one possible drawback of this proposal - that arising from changes to the scope of DS areas - could be substantially mitigated by some form of automagical notification when the scope of a sanction area changes. This might not be possible, as things stand, in the case of editors who are deemed to be aware, for example, due to their participation in AE discussion on a certain DS topic. That anomaly might be a reason to change the overall awareness procedure slightly, so that editors who are "deemed aware" have to receive the template on their user Talk after their awareness has been noted: they were already aware as of the date and time of their AE participation in the topic area, but the template is used as a marker so that the systems can detect its presence in the user Talk history and generate a notice of the change of the DS topic's scope, should that happen.
It seems to me that whatever small advantage there might actually be in "reminding" editors of DS areas annually is substantially outweighed by the irritants (i) and (ii) I noted above; the existence of the DS-aware template also already nullifies this supposed advantage for a non-trivial population of editors. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Re "Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert ..." I'd hope that would be a minimal justification since I've recently seen what appears to be an administrator's alert after a single climate-change comment on a talk page (I'll point to the discussion and ping the parties if someone thinks that's dubious). It would enhance if the third sentence was "You have shown interest in [topic] three or more times in the last twelve months." If it's false that doesn't invalidate the alert, but the recipient (per later in the DS/alert message) can query "What edits? Prove it", which makes it more trouble to issue alerts without prior research. The twelve-month expiry is good for the same reason. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Jayron32, as alluded to by Barkeep49, there has been a review of the discretionary sanctions procedures underway since 2021. I hope that the forthcoming proposal will include something like the one-time alert I suggested, explaining how discretionary sanctions work and telling the editor how to find out for themselves if a page is subject to discretionary sanctions. isaacl ( talk) 20:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing a lot wrong with the situation. If you don't want warnings add the temlpate saying you are aware, if you don't want the template and want to edit controversial areas then getting a warning a year is not a major problem. It would be great if there was an automated way to send out these messages as it invariably ends up being someone who is at odds with the editor who places the notice and often this just inflames the situation. Having a bot do it would take away alot of the personilisation. Aircorn (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Jayron - I saw this after I posted this response at ANI so it is now posted here. It also triggers a filter that states the user is already aware, and advises not to post another. The remedy for these issues has already been passed by ArbCom. Users simply have to take advantage of it. Atsme 💬 📧 14:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The system of formal DS notices is really, really bad. It encourages hostility and presumptions of bad faith, making conflicts more rancorous rather than encouraging constructive editing. The core problem is that sending someone a formal DS notice is seen as (and, in fact, is) a hostile act. To a new editor, it is a big scary notice, no matter how carefully it says that it doesn't imply wrongdoing. Even to an editor who understands the underlying system, it is often a blunt statement that the person posting it believes that bringing the target to AE will eventually be necessary. Nor do they actually convey anything helpful - a new user will not know our default standards and therefore will have no context for how AE topic areas alter them; an experienced user should have at least a general sense that touchy areas are handled more strictly. And when taking someone to AE is necessary it sometimes leads to people who were obviously aware of what they were doing wrong and the high-scrutiny nature of the articles they were editing getting off on a technicality.
Nothing about it works the way it should. And it is totally, completely unnecessary - should editors get some degree of warning? Sure, but we manage WP:3RR (which generally requires some degree of warning or awareness) just fine without a formal system; administrators are very capable of judging for themselves whether someone was given adequate notice. The prerequisite to bringing anyone anywhere, including AE, is to make some effort to talk it out first; the templates are not a substitute for that. The requirement should be removed, and the relevant templates should be deleted and salted against recreation. They're terrible things that are causing serious damage to no benefit whatsoever.
Regarding the suggestion above that people can opt-out of the templates - that is no use at all to new users (for whom a scary template, usually delivered by someone they are in the middle of a hot dispute with, is going to be the most harmful.) And it does not answer the underlying problem that the templates serve no useful purpose; we manage just fine without such a formal system everywhere else. They were devised years ago when AE was a rare exception, by experienced editors who didn't want to trip over this new set of rules. None of that applies anymore - AE is a longestanding well-established part of our existing rules and should be treated the same way, not with these hostile WP:BITE-y messages. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm briefly commenting here because Barkeep49 mentioned me below.
The discretionary sanctions system started to evolve the year before I first joined ArbCom (2008). As noted, I pointed out many times then and thereafter that because topic-areas under DS were subject to different rules from other topic-areas, and some pages in those topic-areas were subject to more specific rules still, it would be unfair to sanction editors for violating rules that they were unaware of. In other words, if an editor was reported to AE or otherwise chided about a DS violation, and credibly responded along the lines of "I never heard of the rule you're telling me I just violated," the proper response would be educational, at most a warning rather than a block—especially where the challenged edits would have been permissible if made in non-DS areas.
"If there's doubt about awareness, warn first" was intended as a principle of fairness rooted in common sense. It has now, however, morphed into what an arbitrator once called "our body of 'awareness law'", and the complexity of the rule-set has long since reached the point of self-parody. The whole superstructure should probably be done away with, and replaced with the simpler original principle that if an editor credibly claims for the first time that he or she was unaware of a given restriction, the appropriate initial response is a notification rather than a sanction. This should cause few problems, because after being advised, the editor will necessary either (1) violate the DS rules again, in which case action could then be taken, or (2) not violate the DS rules again, in which case the problem is solved.
The overcomplexity of the DS regime is an example of a broader Wikipedia/Wikimedia-wide problem. That problem is well-discussed in this article from a few years ago. As it happens, the article was written by a current member of the WMF Board of Trustees, which as was recently discussed on a mailing list, is suffering from some governance-process hypertrophy of its own—thereby helping to illustrate how pervasive and intractable this movement-wide type of dysfunction seems to be.
On the specifics of DS awareness, I am sure I am overlooking some fine points: I have admittedly become somewhat jaded after participating in these discussions for 15 years. My ex-colleagues and successors have my best wishes for cleaning up the mess, one which I'm sure I played some part in helping to create. In the meantime, the system should be administered with as much common sense as English Wikipedia is capable of ... which I realize, in my old wiki-age, is not always as much as it ought to be. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The article you just edited is in a controversial topic area, and I didn't think much of your contributions, so I'm leaving this templated message on your talk page so that I can get you banned if you do it again. All the best!
Tewdar 09:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions are not enforced uniformly, so naturally there will also be a sense of unfairness or injustice regardless if it's a notice given or an enforcement request result. In many cases of placing a notice, it's because an editor saw another editor made an edit they didn't like. The system needs a major overhaul.
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 Mhawk10 at 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The current clause states should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy
. There do not appear to be any active discretionary sanctions in this area based upon the arbitration enforcement logs (
2013,
2014,
2015). Since the discretionary sanctions have been superseded by
WP:AP2, and decision sanctions are distinguished from discretionary sanctions by the text of the case, this is a zombie clause that's still in force but can never be used. A motion to strike this zombie clause would help to complete the clean-up from when this got merged with AP2. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk) 04:35, 29 June 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 Barkeep49 at 19:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I got a one year topic ban in this area and would like to appeal the ban. Apparently, my editing was disruptive and I pledge to change that. I never meant any harm with my edits. In any case, I just took a seven month break from Wikipedia and am ready to contribute positively. I was kind of busy in the past few months. If you let me back, I promise I will contribute positively. There was a sockpuppet that I was dealing with and things may have gotten a bit messy but I promise there will be no disruption from me. You can look at my talk page history and see that I have never been disruptive. By the way, I am not sure if I am appealing this the right way or if I have to appeal to the arbitration committee i.e. I did not know what to put for 'user imposing the sanction' so I just put ArbCom. The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt (and did not even get one of the diffs correct). Go through my talk page history and you will find almost no warnings. You want to extend the topic ban, go ahead. I fully swear 100% to god that I have NEVER been disruptive. That case was opened by a banned user. That one month block btw, I’m not sure what it was for i.e. I think it was supposed to be an arbitration block but it was because a user went forum shopping. I am telling you I am 100% innocent. The block on the French wiki was because I was reverting a sockpuppet's edits on that wiki. I am telling you, though, I am 100% innocent. If you do not believe me, that is your choice. The topic ban is not even possible. Banned users cannot open arb cases. Do whatever you want. Honestly, I don’t even know why I even came back. The whole thing is just weird but again do whatever you want. Banned users cannot open arb cases and users like Levivich cannot do (or are not supposed to be allowed to do witch hunts). Before that point, I had NEVER really had any warnings. He did a witch hunt and portrayed me as a disruptive editor. I am telling you, though, I am not a disruptive editor. Believe whoever you want. It is your choice. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you. BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Two things I'd like to raise: First, the last edit Thepharoah17 made prior to posting this request is this from Dec. 6, which I won't characterize, but I think reviewing admins should read. Second, I think it would help to see a few examples from the past year where Thepharoah17 has resolved a content dispute with another editor, or at least engaged in discussion of content with another editor, to demonstrate that their approach has indeed changed from the approach that led to the TBAN. Levivich block 18:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor, [17] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter. [18] [19] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan, [20] [21] [22], pushing an anti-Kurd POV, [23] [24] [25] [26] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State. [27]
- Passed 12 to 0 at 14:22, 23 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.
I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia.you are free to make positive contributions to Wikipedia about every other subject you can think of.
If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you.It's not about telling us things, the evidence of your contributions shows that you very much were disruptive. You need to show us, through your edits, that you no longer are.
BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Thepharoah17 makes it clear that the basis for your topic ban was not just "reverting a sock puppet".
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 Xaosflux at 16:44, 6 August 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 2021 the related Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion was passed, and replacing the specific restrictions on users with selection of the Extendedconfirmed user group as requirement. We have had some recent discussion at WP:PERM if this includes any user that any administrator also decides to add to that user group, even if they do not meet the normal requirements, and even if for the explicit purpose of bypassing this remedy. There are sometimes non-remedy reasons to give someone EC early (not related to WP:LEGITSOCKs which I don't think anyone is confused about), when I give someone EC early for some non-remedy reason I normally warn them to purposefully avoid articles under this remedy until they would naturally qualify. So in summary, may admins allow any editor to bypass this remedy by adding them to this user group?
The difficulty in the particular case giving rise to this ARCA was compounded by a series of events. A non ecp editor created an AI article for a breaking news event with a clearly POV title and then !voted to support that title in an RM designed to remedy the POV issue. When their non ecp comments in that still open RM were struck as is usual, it transpired that the otherwise still unqualified editor had been granted perms -> kerfuffle. This could possibly have all have been avoided were it possible to auto undo AI article creation by non ecp editors.
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 Johnpacklambert at 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
My topic ban says I am not allowed to participate in deletion discussion or anything like unto it. The whole discussion in imposing it was about articles. I am wondering if it extends to Categories for discussion, especially such discussions that are only speaking about renaming an existing category, and not at all trying to get a category deleted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Your bringing this to WP:ARCA, will not result in a block or ban, JPL. GoodDay ( talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like the arbs to consider expanding Johnpacklambert's topic ban to include notability, broadly contrued. Part of the reason that he was topic banned was due to distruption around the notability of atheletes and he is now at WT:Notability (sports) continuing the same sort of behavior. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Note that
Seraphimblade has
closed the Arbitration Enforcement request with the outcome
Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban
and blocked JPL accordingly.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:48, 22 August 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.
Is posting notice on my talk page that I found 2 articles that have the exact same subject, just say a name that was spelled in a minor way differently OK. Or is doing that in violation of the Topic ban as well.if the topic ban would prevent him from doing it directly, it's my opinion that trying to get someone else to do it, like by posting on the user talk, is against broadly construed. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:24, 22 August 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 Jayen466 at 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
T_Cells' site-ban has come up in the context of his receiving WMF grant money to coordinate the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest. If he is being discussed here then he should, as a basic principle of courtesy, be allowed to comment in that discussion, if he wishes to do so.
With all due respect to Jayen466, I don't think this is really necessary. The case of Wikicology/T Cells is simply being used as an example for a broader phenomenon, and that discussion is more geared towards WMF process, not the particulars of Wikicology's behavior. -
Indy beetle (
talk) 08:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I remember clearly most of the events that led to the block of T Cells. I remember I was really pissed at him (his editing style), and how Wikipedia was accommodating him. Fast forward to 2022, and we have a transformed editor that has improved in almost all aspects on and off wiki. I am not supporting this because I got to know him more, I am supporting because the way he handles issues has significantly changed (even reborn) and I am very confident the factors that led to his block will not arise again. This is the right step in the right direction. Back to the subject of this amendment, T Cells has been a dedicated volunteer for Yoruba wiki, Commons and Meta spaces, and I believe this will allow him coordinate the activities better. It has been years, no one should be revoked for life, except in special cases which I do not think this should fall into.
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 Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 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
The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?
Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as
Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the
Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the
poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of
WP:EE
WP:ARBEE?
Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
How about the Soviet satellite state of East Germany? Additional illustration - Greece and the European part of Turkey. This might be confusing to the young (born in 2000 +) - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
If my memory serves me correctly? The countries in Europe that were under Soviet influence or control, were described as "Eastern European countries", as being behind the "Iron Curtain". The East (Communist) vs West (Democracy), etc. GoodDay ( talk) 14:24, 17 August 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 former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. But my sense is that steam has gone out here – I doubt there's appetite for clarification by motion. @ Red-tailed hawk, would it be satisfactory to close this ARCA and file a new one if needed in the future? Make sure to link this ARCA and discussion in future ARCAs so that future committees have a jumping-off point. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:37, 18 September 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 Sideswipe9th at 21:21, 7 September 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'd like to request clarification on the title, and scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions please. There appears to be a disconnect between the title of the case, and the text of the
remedy. The title of the case implies that this case covers all edits relating to both gender and sexuality, however the text of the remedy states that the scope is limited to [disputes] regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender
(remedy 1), and any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force
(remedy 2). While there is considerable overlap between the various communities under the LGBT+ umbrella, with many individuals belonging to more than community, by a plain reading of the text, neither of the two active remedies in the case involve sexuality.
My requests for clarification are;
Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them, which by a plain reading implies that the sanctions are limited in scope to edits relating only to trans or non-binary people. However BDD said the answer to my first question, which was asking if the GENSEX d/s covers edits relating to sexuality of a person who is not trans or non-binary, is yes.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, and
Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. The second quotation explicitly limits the scope to edits involving trans and/or non-binary people, and the first implicitly does so by a plain reading of the phrase
gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
gender-related disputedoesn't really achieve this, because even reasonable people can have disagreements on what exactly is or is not a gender-related dispute, and unreasonable people could use the ambiguity to try and wikilawyer for why the sanctions do not apply to a given page. For a related example of this ambiguity in practice leading to wikilawyering, read the initial comments by Maneesh in the Maneesh AE case.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.becomes
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to both; any gender-related dispute or controversy, or any sexuality-related dispute or controversy, and their associated people.Changes in bold.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any sexuality-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
I believe the scope notes you refer to are preceded by this, the active remedy, which is much more broad:
...with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people."
I think the elements you're referring to specifically are there just to be clear about situations from preceding cases or clarification requests. At the time of GamerGate there had already been several fraught cases and I think the committee decided that participants would move these fights to other similar topics or that similar conflicts would appear later.
Seren_ Dept 00:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I think whether this needs a case depends on the nature of the request - is it clerical or substantive:
I realise this may be stating the obvious, but I think it's important that we clearly define what the actual issue is here. I do not know enough about the topic to offer an opinion there unfortunately. firefly ( t · c ) 08:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it is extremely clear that the gender and sexuality case applies to gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people
as described at
WP:GENSEX; that was roughly the scope of the
Gamergate discretionary sanctions that it replaced, and nothing, at any point in the discussion or outcome of that transfer, suggested that the intent was to narrow the scope of the sanctions. In fact, the entire reason it was done by motion was simply to rename the sanctions specifically to reflect that broad scope. It has also been repeatedly and continuously used under that broader scope since then without anyone objecting; see eg:
...and many more besides; I stopped there, but basically every AE discussion I could find that fell under GENSEX would not fall under the narrow scope implied by the bit above. The four listed points are a mere poorly-worded addition to the existing scope and should be fixed by motion. It absolutely does not require a full case, and the suggestion that it does is a terrible idea because entertaining the possibility that the gensex DSes have ever not applied to any gender-related dispute or controversy
would effectively throw the vast majority of
WP:GENSEX AE actions taken in the time since the Gamergate sanctions were renamed into doubt. --
Aquillion (
talk) 06:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This case was so named after a
community comment on the matter as to where the discretionary sanctions originally authorized by
GamerGate should be located. It was decided to relocate the sanctions authorization into a new shell case. If you want to see the extensive conversation about the case name, I would defer to the discussion that happened
post-announcement (where this ground was previously tread).
For the record, there used to be Arbcom discretionary sanctions on sexuality authorized through
Sexology, but they were
repealed in 2017 for being redundant with GamerGate. There's a lot of history here.
Unless given evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty sure most of the concerns raised in this request are just hypothetical. I don't think many people are confused about the scope of these sanctions since templates like {{
Ds/talk notice|topic=pa}} make it pretty clear what's exactly covered.
That isn't to say I wouldn't like to see a full case on the matter... A wider evaluation may be sorely needed for GENSEX, but I've pretty much gave up on the topic area some time ago. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 23:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
gender-related disputes or controversies. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Homosexuality, sexual orientation, and all of sexuality, are "gender-related disputes or controversies" IMO. Levivich 😃 17:18, 10 September 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.
any gender-related dispute or controversyto
any dispute or controversy related to gender or sexuality, and supersedes the community GS if needed.
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 Red-tailed hawk at 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I am asking that a decision of Valereee to strike question #7 from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale be overturned and Question 7 be restored for discussion. The proposal would create a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, as follows:
After discussing with Valereee on the talk page of the RfC, Valeree clarified that the reason for the solution being out-of-scope was not that the principle that "all mass-created articles must have a reliable sourced indication of important" is out-of-scope, agreeing that the proposals:A12: No reliably sourced indication of importance (mass-created articles).
This criterion applies to any mass-created article that does not have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This would apply to any mass-created article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is a lower standard than notability. If the sourced claim's importance or significance is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
andAll mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This will be enforced by some method determined in the future
would appear to be in-scope for this RfC (though Valereee expressed concerns about the ability of the latter to attain consensus). The rationale for striking Question #7 and not the other two without an enforcement mechanism was that the particular solution to the problems posed by creation of articles at scale involves deletionall mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. Mass-creating articles without doing so is considered disruptive editing
is focused primarily on creating a new criterion for speedy deletion and doesn't feel like it's something that is keeping bad articles from being mass created. That being said, RfC Rule#2 notes that
[t]he sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about policy going forward surrounding creation of articles at scale and to form consensus on those solutions, and I frankly fail to see why the moderator would restrict the ability to propose a policy solution relating to the creation of articles at scale on the sole basis that doing so directly involves deletion of articles. This leaves the option of floating the general principle without an enforcement mechanism (which leaves it vulnerable to criticism that the proposal lacks an enforcement mechanism) or the option of treating this through the lens of user misconduct (which I'm not sure is the best way to handle this), but it bars us from discussion what I believe is the best way to deal with mass-created articles that violate the central principle. The discussion had involved several editors, both in support and opposition, before it was closed by the moderator.
As the arbitration decision, as amended in September 2022, states that [a]ny appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
, I ask that ArbCom provide final clarity by either overturning the moderator's action to re-open the close or explicitly affirm the
decision of the moderator that the proposal would be appropriate for discussion at what the moderator terms the RfC on AfD
. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The question of RTH's that I hatted was primarily about creating a new CSD. I think this is better handled at the second RfC. I do understand there's a blurry line between the two RfCs, but my feeling is that the question of deletion processes for dealing with problematic mass creation is better handled at the second RfC, after we've discovered whether the community can come up with a solution to problematic mass creation itself. Or even a definition of problematic mass creation. I believe until we can answer those questions, discussing deletion is probably spinning our wheels.
This seems overcomplicated for what is ultimately: does a proposal deal with creating articles? Go ahead and propose it. Does it deal with deleting articles? Wait for the next RfC. Yes, all of them are going to be connected, which is why we're having both and not stopping at the end of this RfC. The collapsing by Valereee seems like an example of exactly why someone has been given the ability to moderate the discussion IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 5 October 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.
find and develop solutions to issues surrounding article creation at scale, with the second to be
on article deletions at scale. Creating a new CSD category pretty clearly falls into the latter camp. Primefac ( talk) 20:00, 5 October 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 Interstellarity at 15:26, 2 October 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
The Watergate scandal article seems to be covered for the AP2 sanction, but it was placed before the date was changed from 1932 to 1992. I am hoping that someone can clarify if the sanction should be removed.
Are the sanctions still required? The talk page is extremely quiet and a glance at the article history shows nothing that the pending changes isn't handling and might even be handled better by standard semi protection. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I think a lot of the issue here is some poorly-worded templates. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Ds § Finally handling "legacy topic areas". Arbs, would anything I've proposed there require ArbCom sign-off to implement? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 09:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Notes
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 21:52, 8 October 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.
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 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | Archive 124 | 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 Shrike at 17:26, 15 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
This regarding following from WP:PIA
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
Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [1] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen [2] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/ WP:ANI/ WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE
Please see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in.
However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zero talk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zero talk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here.
Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [13] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [14] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry. This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
For the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:32, 20 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.
However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.(emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
All registered users are welcome to comment on requests not covered by extended confirmation requirements.I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. — Wug· a·po·des 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles(to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
All users are welcome to comment on requests.to
All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate ECR.or some such is closer to what I would recommend. Explicitly, I think this should not be at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. -- Izno ( talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed restrictions apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at
Arbitration Enforcement when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header is modified by replacing All users are welcome to comment on requests.
with All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an
extended-confirmed restriction).
Internal project discussions include[...]noticeboard discussions (including arbitration enforcement).— Wug· a·po·des 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). Listing one restriction like ECR seems to imply that no other restrictions are in effect, whereas in fact if you are e.g. topic banned you can't comment unless an exemption applies. Have also copyedited the motion slightly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures ( Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Extended confirmed restriction) are amended by appending at the end the following list item:
E. Uninvolved administrators may in specific cases grant an exception to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a specific internal project discussion.
E. Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ( WP:AE), notwithstanding this restriction.
The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
- Arbitration enforcement noticeboard
Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow an editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ( WP:AE) notwithstanding any restrictions that would have otherwise prevented the editor from participating (such as the extended confirmed restriction).
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 Mythdon at 04:52, 11 April 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 have a question as to whether the restrictions listed here are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed here and here) has expired.
Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following this discussion. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was blocked indefinitely shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said here "To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)" (the topic ban listed here here had already been imposed by that time).
I was unblocked in 2012 and back in 2016, I appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN, which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed here?
Based on to run under the current restrictions and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that to run under the current restrictions meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here.
It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation?
— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 April 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.
Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.
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 Ypatch at 03:49, 16 May 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
Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping) sanctioned me with a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page. I think Vanamonde is a good admin, and I do take responsibility for my flaws as an editor: I could have tried harder to put myself in the other’s shoes, could have tried harder to debate from a more objective perspective instead of nickpicking fallacies or flaws from counter arguments. I have since taken time off from Iranian politics, and really don’t plan to get involved with debating with anyone again or editing on this topic. I would just like to, from time to time, be able to comment on some talk page discussions. I do know a lot about this subject, and think I could help clarify some points citing the literature I’m familiar with, etc. That is what this request is about.
@
Barkeep49: Apologies: as RP said, I've been travelling, with infrequent internet and little time. I sanctioned Ypatch essentially for displaying a battleground attitude. Before granting an appeal I would want to see evidence that going forward they will be able to engage constructively with users they disagree with within this contentious area. I haven't the time to evaluate whether that's the case, and am happy to leave that to ARBCOM's discretion. I do apologize for not filing the right forms logging the sanction; I do recognize the need for it. Best,
Vanamonde (
Talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, appeals
at AE and
at AN have occurred. As I
noted on my talk page in March, my reading of
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § sanctions.appeals is that further consideration is only allowed here, at ARCA. A strict reading of the text seems to imply that Vanamonde93 is unable to lift the sanction even if they wished, given that it has moved beyond the first stage (
Sdrqaz (
talk) 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC); struck 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
"ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision"
), and, for that matter, the second.
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 Jayron32 at 13:16, 26 May 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
There was a recent ANI case that centered around ambiguity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts. After some acrimony, the case was solved sufficiently, so I am not naming any parties for this request for clarification, though any commentary from anyone involved with that discussion would be welcome. One of the tangential issues that came up related to some ambiguity of the DS awareness and alert system regarding the 12-month time limit, especially in regards to notifying users who are not active in the area-of-dispute they are being alerted for. The user in question had done some editing back in January in the area, but had not touched it in the intervening months, and was blindsided by a DS-alert template which confused and confounded them; this led to an argument over the placement of the template, some considerable WP:WIKILAWYERing, and some unnecessary name-calling. Eventually, things calmed down, but not until there had been a lot of drama. I feel like a lot of this could have been avoided if there were some better clarification on the appropriate use of DS-alert templates; specifically when is the use of the template authorized, and more importantly when not. I had mistakenly thought that there was some parameters on when it could be placed, but I can't find anything in the guidance; is it really intended that any user can be notified of, and placed under, DS-alert at any time, regardless of whether or not they are, or have ever been, actively editing in one of the DS-targeted areas? If not, what are the parameters of when it is appropriate to use such an alert? Which is to say, how recently should a person have been editing in the targeted area? The past week? Past month? Past year? Ever? Thanks for your attention to, and clarification of, this issue. -- Jayron 32 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer that all editors be presumed aware if they meet a requirement (eg 500 edits + 30 days). Send out a notice to the talk page of such editors once they qualify explaining that. Then it is only necessary to deal with relatively new editors and they can be covered with the same notification sent manually (by anyone). Maybe this is too simplistic but the current system is dreadful. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
This is very basic, and yes a whole lot of unnecessary drama. The placing of an informational template, which explicitly disclaims any accusation of wrongdoing, is a non-event. A bot should do it, if you have edited in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions you should be informed of the sanctions, full stop. Calling that harassment, when it is one edit giving a required notification, is asinine and borders on gaslighting when coupled with actually harassing claims and insults. If a user has a history, any history, of activity that would merit a trip to AE, including edit-warring or personal attacks, they should be informed of the sanctions. So that if that occurs in the future it may be reported to AE rather than the circus of ANI. And if you do not want a notification, place the freaking awarness template on your talk page. You can do it in a hidden comment and it won't even display the banner. nableezy - 13:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
With due respect to Jayron32, experienced editors are not "blindsided" by receiving DS-alerts. Whether clarifications to the rules are needed, I'm not sure. Perhaps bringing together the disparate bits into one statement would help. However, DS-alerts exist for a good reason and it must not be the case that delivering them is something a good faith editor only undertakes with trepidation. A objective system would be a bot that delivers an alert to any editor who edits a page with a DS template but hasn't received an alert in the past 12 months and doesn't have the DS-aware template. With that system, I will get one every year and that's just fine. Zero talk 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Having thought about this a little more, I would add "and the relevant arbcom ruling has been changed since the last alert notice" to the criteria for a bot-delivered alert. I don't think that would be a good addition for human-delivered alerts though, as it is an unnecessary burden to check. Zero talk 06:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
"They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)", but it's not clear whether a revoked sanction that wasn't appealed fulfills the criterion or not. I doubt there are many sanctions removed without appeal, but there's been at least one, and confusion over the awareness status was a part of this dispute. Can we tweak the criterion to say
"and at least one of such sanctions has not been revoked"? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)"Users
editing these pageswho have edited these pages within the last year may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect."
First of all, thank you to Jayron32 for bringing this here. I closed the ANI thread as the discussion had moved from being productive to having a strong heat>light ratio as an uninvolved editor. For some personal background, I had notified Levivich of a DS alert in 2020 regarding infoboxes here:
[15] as I honestly could not tell if he was aware of the drama that had plagued that topic area. He 'thank'ed me for the notification. The next day, an IP editor with no other few other edits posed a DS-aware template on my talk page:
[16]. I took no offense but I think it is reasonable to assume, based on my participation in the topic area that I was aware, even without the template.
Maybe the template can be softened? It already says, as Nableezy says above, that wrongdoing is not assumed. I intentionally stay away from the hornets' nest that is AMPOL, IPA, PIA, and the other 'alphabet soup' sanction areas. The challenge lies in the wording that an editor must be notified of DS. And I get why- there is extensive precedent that an area has been problematic. These templates, as noted above, are good for new editors that may not be aware of problems. Most established editors who read the dramah areas will be aware without seeing a DS template with the draconian scales of justice on their talk page.
Further clarification is necessary and possible investigation needed on the effectiveness of these templates. Maybe encouraging editors to place the DS-aware template on their talkpage to avoid the drama? The current system is impersonal and sometimes insulting, as seen in the ANI thread. Perhaps loosening the yearly awareness criterion and moving to a one-off? Talk page histories are rarely deleted and it is easy to find the diff of when a notification was sent. We could also have a bot do it, which removes the personal grudges and the HAHA, GOTCHA! nature of these notifications, especially when it comes from one established editor to another.
In sum, my thoughts are:
This is tricky and often a sore spot for editors. Thanks, Jip Orlando ( talk) 14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
While the bot idea sounds promising in theory, in practice it is less so. Many of our discretionary sanctions pages are only considered so due to "broadly construed". While a human editor can make the determination as to whether or not a specific article is within the scope of one or more relevant sanctions, that isn't feasible for bot. In order for a bot to function, lists of articles would need to be created and maintained, one for each sanction area, with new articles added as they are created or at some point enter the scope of a sanction, and others being removed as they are deleted or leave the scope of a sanction. While an alternative to a public facing list might be for the bot to scan/read for a ds/talk notice on an article's talk page, not all articles that are within the scope of a sanction have been tagged as such. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Based on my experience at AE and in DS areas, I think that a one-time notification for a given DS, rather than a yearly notification, seems appropriate for any sanction regime that does not have a built-in sunset date and which has not been amended since the last notification. Now, as I type this, I recognize that cases where the regime has been amended since the last notification could present a thorny edge case, but it would at least have allowed us to dodge this instance of Nableezy v. Levivich. signed, Rosguill talk 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I support Rosgull's proposal for "perma-awareness" once an editor is AWARE of a particular DS area: this would seem to remove the major irritants of the current system, which in my view consist of (i) editors becoming annoyed at new templated reminders after a year has passed (although they are unwilling to template themselves as ds-aware, which would avoid this annoyance, for whatever reason), and (ii) editors evading sanctions thanks to expired awareness templates - the scenario that gives rise to the renewed notifications, which in turn gives rise to (i).
It seems to me that the one possible drawback of this proposal - that arising from changes to the scope of DS areas - could be substantially mitigated by some form of automagical notification when the scope of a sanction area changes. This might not be possible, as things stand, in the case of editors who are deemed to be aware, for example, due to their participation in AE discussion on a certain DS topic. That anomaly might be a reason to change the overall awareness procedure slightly, so that editors who are "deemed aware" have to receive the template on their user Talk after their awareness has been noted: they were already aware as of the date and time of their AE participation in the topic area, but the template is used as a marker so that the systems can detect its presence in the user Talk history and generate a notice of the change of the DS topic's scope, should that happen.
It seems to me that whatever small advantage there might actually be in "reminding" editors of DS areas annually is substantially outweighed by the irritants (i) and (ii) I noted above; the existence of the DS-aware template also already nullifies this supposed advantage for a non-trivial population of editors. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Re "Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert ..." I'd hope that would be a minimal justification since I've recently seen what appears to be an administrator's alert after a single climate-change comment on a talk page (I'll point to the discussion and ping the parties if someone thinks that's dubious). It would enhance if the third sentence was "You have shown interest in [topic] three or more times in the last twelve months." If it's false that doesn't invalidate the alert, but the recipient (per later in the DS/alert message) can query "What edits? Prove it", which makes it more trouble to issue alerts without prior research. The twelve-month expiry is good for the same reason. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Jayron32, as alluded to by Barkeep49, there has been a review of the discretionary sanctions procedures underway since 2021. I hope that the forthcoming proposal will include something like the one-time alert I suggested, explaining how discretionary sanctions work and telling the editor how to find out for themselves if a page is subject to discretionary sanctions. isaacl ( talk) 20:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing a lot wrong with the situation. If you don't want warnings add the temlpate saying you are aware, if you don't want the template and want to edit controversial areas then getting a warning a year is not a major problem. It would be great if there was an automated way to send out these messages as it invariably ends up being someone who is at odds with the editor who places the notice and often this just inflames the situation. Having a bot do it would take away alot of the personilisation. Aircorn (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Jayron - I saw this after I posted this response at ANI so it is now posted here. It also triggers a filter that states the user is already aware, and advises not to post another. The remedy for these issues has already been passed by ArbCom. Users simply have to take advantage of it. Atsme 💬 📧 14:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The system of formal DS notices is really, really bad. It encourages hostility and presumptions of bad faith, making conflicts more rancorous rather than encouraging constructive editing. The core problem is that sending someone a formal DS notice is seen as (and, in fact, is) a hostile act. To a new editor, it is a big scary notice, no matter how carefully it says that it doesn't imply wrongdoing. Even to an editor who understands the underlying system, it is often a blunt statement that the person posting it believes that bringing the target to AE will eventually be necessary. Nor do they actually convey anything helpful - a new user will not know our default standards and therefore will have no context for how AE topic areas alter them; an experienced user should have at least a general sense that touchy areas are handled more strictly. And when taking someone to AE is necessary it sometimes leads to people who were obviously aware of what they were doing wrong and the high-scrutiny nature of the articles they were editing getting off on a technicality.
Nothing about it works the way it should. And it is totally, completely unnecessary - should editors get some degree of warning? Sure, but we manage WP:3RR (which generally requires some degree of warning or awareness) just fine without a formal system; administrators are very capable of judging for themselves whether someone was given adequate notice. The prerequisite to bringing anyone anywhere, including AE, is to make some effort to talk it out first; the templates are not a substitute for that. The requirement should be removed, and the relevant templates should be deleted and salted against recreation. They're terrible things that are causing serious damage to no benefit whatsoever.
Regarding the suggestion above that people can opt-out of the templates - that is no use at all to new users (for whom a scary template, usually delivered by someone they are in the middle of a hot dispute with, is going to be the most harmful.) And it does not answer the underlying problem that the templates serve no useful purpose; we manage just fine without such a formal system everywhere else. They were devised years ago when AE was a rare exception, by experienced editors who didn't want to trip over this new set of rules. None of that applies anymore - AE is a longestanding well-established part of our existing rules and should be treated the same way, not with these hostile WP:BITE-y messages. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm briefly commenting here because Barkeep49 mentioned me below.
The discretionary sanctions system started to evolve the year before I first joined ArbCom (2008). As noted, I pointed out many times then and thereafter that because topic-areas under DS were subject to different rules from other topic-areas, and some pages in those topic-areas were subject to more specific rules still, it would be unfair to sanction editors for violating rules that they were unaware of. In other words, if an editor was reported to AE or otherwise chided about a DS violation, and credibly responded along the lines of "I never heard of the rule you're telling me I just violated," the proper response would be educational, at most a warning rather than a block—especially where the challenged edits would have been permissible if made in non-DS areas.
"If there's doubt about awareness, warn first" was intended as a principle of fairness rooted in common sense. It has now, however, morphed into what an arbitrator once called "our body of 'awareness law'", and the complexity of the rule-set has long since reached the point of self-parody. The whole superstructure should probably be done away with, and replaced with the simpler original principle that if an editor credibly claims for the first time that he or she was unaware of a given restriction, the appropriate initial response is a notification rather than a sanction. This should cause few problems, because after being advised, the editor will necessary either (1) violate the DS rules again, in which case action could then be taken, or (2) not violate the DS rules again, in which case the problem is solved.
The overcomplexity of the DS regime is an example of a broader Wikipedia/Wikimedia-wide problem. That problem is well-discussed in this article from a few years ago. As it happens, the article was written by a current member of the WMF Board of Trustees, which as was recently discussed on a mailing list, is suffering from some governance-process hypertrophy of its own—thereby helping to illustrate how pervasive and intractable this movement-wide type of dysfunction seems to be.
On the specifics of DS awareness, I am sure I am overlooking some fine points: I have admittedly become somewhat jaded after participating in these discussions for 15 years. My ex-colleagues and successors have my best wishes for cleaning up the mess, one which I'm sure I played some part in helping to create. In the meantime, the system should be administered with as much common sense as English Wikipedia is capable of ... which I realize, in my old wiki-age, is not always as much as it ought to be. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The article you just edited is in a controversial topic area, and I didn't think much of your contributions, so I'm leaving this templated message on your talk page so that I can get you banned if you do it again. All the best!
Tewdar 09:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions are not enforced uniformly, so naturally there will also be a sense of unfairness or injustice regardless if it's a notice given or an enforcement request result. In many cases of placing a notice, it's because an editor saw another editor made an edit they didn't like. The system needs a major overhaul.
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 Mhawk10 at 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The current clause states should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy
. There do not appear to be any active discretionary sanctions in this area based upon the arbitration enforcement logs (
2013,
2014,
2015). Since the discretionary sanctions have been superseded by
WP:AP2, and decision sanctions are distinguished from discretionary sanctions by the text of the case, this is a zombie clause that's still in force but can never be used. A motion to strike this zombie clause would help to complete the clean-up from when this got merged with AP2. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk) 04:35, 29 June 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 Barkeep49 at 19:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I got a one year topic ban in this area and would like to appeal the ban. Apparently, my editing was disruptive and I pledge to change that. I never meant any harm with my edits. In any case, I just took a seven month break from Wikipedia and am ready to contribute positively. I was kind of busy in the past few months. If you let me back, I promise I will contribute positively. There was a sockpuppet that I was dealing with and things may have gotten a bit messy but I promise there will be no disruption from me. You can look at my talk page history and see that I have never been disruptive. By the way, I am not sure if I am appealing this the right way or if I have to appeal to the arbitration committee i.e. I did not know what to put for 'user imposing the sanction' so I just put ArbCom. The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt (and did not even get one of the diffs correct). Go through my talk page history and you will find almost no warnings. You want to extend the topic ban, go ahead. I fully swear 100% to god that I have NEVER been disruptive. That case was opened by a banned user. That one month block btw, I’m not sure what it was for i.e. I think it was supposed to be an arbitration block but it was because a user went forum shopping. I am telling you I am 100% innocent. The block on the French wiki was because I was reverting a sockpuppet's edits on that wiki. I am telling you, though, I am 100% innocent. If you do not believe me, that is your choice. The topic ban is not even possible. Banned users cannot open arb cases. Do whatever you want. Honestly, I don’t even know why I even came back. The whole thing is just weird but again do whatever you want. Banned users cannot open arb cases and users like Levivich cannot do (or are not supposed to be allowed to do witch hunts). Before that point, I had NEVER really had any warnings. He did a witch hunt and portrayed me as a disruptive editor. I am telling you, though, I am not a disruptive editor. Believe whoever you want. It is your choice. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you. BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Two things I'd like to raise: First, the last edit Thepharoah17 made prior to posting this request is this from Dec. 6, which I won't characterize, but I think reviewing admins should read. Second, I think it would help to see a few examples from the past year where Thepharoah17 has resolved a content dispute with another editor, or at least engaged in discussion of content with another editor, to demonstrate that their approach has indeed changed from the approach that led to the TBAN. Levivich block 18:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor, [17] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter. [18] [19] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan, [20] [21] [22], pushing an anti-Kurd POV, [23] [24] [25] [26] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State. [27]
- Passed 12 to 0 at 14:22, 23 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.
I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia.you are free to make positive contributions to Wikipedia about every other subject you can think of.
If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you.It's not about telling us things, the evidence of your contributions shows that you very much were disruptive. You need to show us, through your edits, that you no longer are.
BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan#Thepharoah17 makes it clear that the basis for your topic ban was not just "reverting a sock puppet".
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 Xaosflux at 16:44, 6 August 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 2021 the related Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion was passed, and replacing the specific restrictions on users with selection of the Extendedconfirmed user group as requirement. We have had some recent discussion at WP:PERM if this includes any user that any administrator also decides to add to that user group, even if they do not meet the normal requirements, and even if for the explicit purpose of bypassing this remedy. There are sometimes non-remedy reasons to give someone EC early (not related to WP:LEGITSOCKs which I don't think anyone is confused about), when I give someone EC early for some non-remedy reason I normally warn them to purposefully avoid articles under this remedy until they would naturally qualify. So in summary, may admins allow any editor to bypass this remedy by adding them to this user group?
The difficulty in the particular case giving rise to this ARCA was compounded by a series of events. A non ecp editor created an AI article for a breaking news event with a clearly POV title and then !voted to support that title in an RM designed to remedy the POV issue. When their non ecp comments in that still open RM were struck as is usual, it transpired that the otherwise still unqualified editor had been granted perms -> kerfuffle. This could possibly have all have been avoided were it possible to auto undo AI article creation by non ecp editors.
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 Johnpacklambert at 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
My topic ban says I am not allowed to participate in deletion discussion or anything like unto it. The whole discussion in imposing it was about articles. I am wondering if it extends to Categories for discussion, especially such discussions that are only speaking about renaming an existing category, and not at all trying to get a category deleted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Your bringing this to WP:ARCA, will not result in a block or ban, JPL. GoodDay ( talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I would like the arbs to consider expanding Johnpacklambert's topic ban to include notability, broadly contrued. Part of the reason that he was topic banned was due to distruption around the notability of atheletes and he is now at WT:Notability (sports) continuing the same sort of behavior. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Note that
Seraphimblade has
closed the Arbitration Enforcement request with the outcome
Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban
and blocked JPL accordingly.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:48, 22 August 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.
Is posting notice on my talk page that I found 2 articles that have the exact same subject, just say a name that was spelled in a minor way differently OK. Or is doing that in violation of the Topic ban as well.if the topic ban would prevent him from doing it directly, it's my opinion that trying to get someone else to do it, like by posting on the user talk, is against broadly construed. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:24, 22 August 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 Jayen466 at 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
T_Cells' site-ban has come up in the context of his receiving WMF grant money to coordinate the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest. If he is being discussed here then he should, as a basic principle of courtesy, be allowed to comment in that discussion, if he wishes to do so.
With all due respect to Jayen466, I don't think this is really necessary. The case of Wikicology/T Cells is simply being used as an example for a broader phenomenon, and that discussion is more geared towards WMF process, not the particulars of Wikicology's behavior. -
Indy beetle (
talk) 08:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I remember clearly most of the events that led to the block of T Cells. I remember I was really pissed at him (his editing style), and how Wikipedia was accommodating him. Fast forward to 2022, and we have a transformed editor that has improved in almost all aspects on and off wiki. I am not supporting this because I got to know him more, I am supporting because the way he handles issues has significantly changed (even reborn) and I am very confident the factors that led to his block will not arise again. This is the right step in the right direction. Back to the subject of this amendment, T Cells has been a dedicated volunteer for Yoruba wiki, Commons and Meta spaces, and I believe this will allow him coordinate the activities better. It has been years, no one should be revoked for life, except in special cases which I do not think this should fall into.
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 Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 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
The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?
Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as
Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the
Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the
poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of
WP:EE
WP:ARBEE?
Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
How about the Soviet satellite state of East Germany? Additional illustration - Greece and the European part of Turkey. This might be confusing to the young (born in 2000 +) - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
If my memory serves me correctly? The countries in Europe that were under Soviet influence or control, were described as "Eastern European countries", as being behind the "Iron Curtain". The East (Communist) vs West (Democracy), etc. GoodDay ( talk) 14:24, 17 August 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 former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. But my sense is that steam has gone out here – I doubt there's appetite for clarification by motion. @ Red-tailed hawk, would it be satisfactory to close this ARCA and file a new one if needed in the future? Make sure to link this ARCA and discussion in future ARCAs so that future committees have a jumping-off point. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:37, 18 September 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 Sideswipe9th at 21:21, 7 September 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'd like to request clarification on the title, and scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions please. There appears to be a disconnect between the title of the case, and the text of the
remedy. The title of the case implies that this case covers all edits relating to both gender and sexuality, however the text of the remedy states that the scope is limited to [disputes] regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender
(remedy 1), and any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force
(remedy 2). While there is considerable overlap between the various communities under the LGBT+ umbrella, with many individuals belonging to more than community, by a plain reading of the text, neither of the two active remedies in the case involve sexuality.
My requests for clarification are;
Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them, which by a plain reading implies that the sanctions are limited in scope to edits relating only to trans or non-binary people. However BDD said the answer to my first question, which was asking if the GENSEX d/s covers edits relating to sexuality of a person who is not trans or non-binary, is yes.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, and
Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. The second quotation explicitly limits the scope to edits involving trans and/or non-binary people, and the first implicitly does so by a plain reading of the phrase
gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
gender-related disputedoesn't really achieve this, because even reasonable people can have disagreements on what exactly is or is not a gender-related dispute, and unreasonable people could use the ambiguity to try and wikilawyer for why the sanctions do not apply to a given page. For a related example of this ambiguity in practice leading to wikilawyering, read the initial comments by Maneesh in the Maneesh AE case.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.becomes
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to both; any gender-related dispute or controversy, or any sexuality-related dispute or controversy, and their associated people.Changes in bold.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any sexuality-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
I believe the scope notes you refer to are preceded by this, the active remedy, which is much more broad:
...with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people."
I think the elements you're referring to specifically are there just to be clear about situations from preceding cases or clarification requests. At the time of GamerGate there had already been several fraught cases and I think the committee decided that participants would move these fights to other similar topics or that similar conflicts would appear later.
Seren_ Dept 00:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I think whether this needs a case depends on the nature of the request - is it clerical or substantive:
I realise this may be stating the obvious, but I think it's important that we clearly define what the actual issue is here. I do not know enough about the topic to offer an opinion there unfortunately. firefly ( t · c ) 08:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it is extremely clear that the gender and sexuality case applies to gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people
as described at
WP:GENSEX; that was roughly the scope of the
Gamergate discretionary sanctions that it replaced, and nothing, at any point in the discussion or outcome of that transfer, suggested that the intent was to narrow the scope of the sanctions. In fact, the entire reason it was done by motion was simply to rename the sanctions specifically to reflect that broad scope. It has also been repeatedly and continuously used under that broader scope since then without anyone objecting; see eg:
...and many more besides; I stopped there, but basically every AE discussion I could find that fell under GENSEX would not fall under the narrow scope implied by the bit above. The four listed points are a mere poorly-worded addition to the existing scope and should be fixed by motion. It absolutely does not require a full case, and the suggestion that it does is a terrible idea because entertaining the possibility that the gensex DSes have ever not applied to any gender-related dispute or controversy
would effectively throw the vast majority of
WP:GENSEX AE actions taken in the time since the Gamergate sanctions were renamed into doubt. --
Aquillion (
talk) 06:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This case was so named after a
community comment on the matter as to where the discretionary sanctions originally authorized by
GamerGate should be located. It was decided to relocate the sanctions authorization into a new shell case. If you want to see the extensive conversation about the case name, I would defer to the discussion that happened
post-announcement (where this ground was previously tread).
For the record, there used to be Arbcom discretionary sanctions on sexuality authorized through
Sexology, but they were
repealed in 2017 for being redundant with GamerGate. There's a lot of history here.
Unless given evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty sure most of the concerns raised in this request are just hypothetical. I don't think many people are confused about the scope of these sanctions since templates like {{
Ds/talk notice|topic=pa}} make it pretty clear what's exactly covered.
That isn't to say I wouldn't like to see a full case on the matter... A wider evaluation may be sorely needed for GENSEX, but I've pretty much gave up on the topic area some time ago. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 23:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
gender-related disputes or controversies. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Homosexuality, sexual orientation, and all of sexuality, are "gender-related disputes or controversies" IMO. Levivich 😃 17:18, 10 September 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.
any gender-related dispute or controversyto
any dispute or controversy related to gender or sexuality, and supersedes the community GS if needed.
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 Red-tailed hawk at 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I am asking that a decision of Valereee to strike question #7 from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale be overturned and Question 7 be restored for discussion. The proposal would create a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, as follows:
After discussing with Valereee on the talk page of the RfC, Valeree clarified that the reason for the solution being out-of-scope was not that the principle that "all mass-created articles must have a reliable sourced indication of important" is out-of-scope, agreeing that the proposals:A12: No reliably sourced indication of importance (mass-created articles).
This criterion applies to any mass-created article that does not have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This would apply to any mass-created article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is a lower standard than notability. If the sourced claim's importance or significance is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
andAll mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This will be enforced by some method determined in the future
would appear to be in-scope for this RfC (though Valereee expressed concerns about the ability of the latter to attain consensus). The rationale for striking Question #7 and not the other two without an enforcement mechanism was that the particular solution to the problems posed by creation of articles at scale involves deletionall mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. Mass-creating articles without doing so is considered disruptive editing
is focused primarily on creating a new criterion for speedy deletion and doesn't feel like it's something that is keeping bad articles from being mass created. That being said, RfC Rule#2 notes that
[t]he sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about policy going forward surrounding creation of articles at scale and to form consensus on those solutions, and I frankly fail to see why the moderator would restrict the ability to propose a policy solution relating to the creation of articles at scale on the sole basis that doing so directly involves deletion of articles. This leaves the option of floating the general principle without an enforcement mechanism (which leaves it vulnerable to criticism that the proposal lacks an enforcement mechanism) or the option of treating this through the lens of user misconduct (which I'm not sure is the best way to handle this), but it bars us from discussion what I believe is the best way to deal with mass-created articles that violate the central principle. The discussion had involved several editors, both in support and opposition, before it was closed by the moderator.
As the arbitration decision, as amended in September 2022, states that [a]ny appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
, I ask that ArbCom provide final clarity by either overturning the moderator's action to re-open the close or explicitly affirm the
decision of the moderator that the proposal would be appropriate for discussion at what the moderator terms the RfC on AfD
. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The question of RTH's that I hatted was primarily about creating a new CSD. I think this is better handled at the second RfC. I do understand there's a blurry line between the two RfCs, but my feeling is that the question of deletion processes for dealing with problematic mass creation is better handled at the second RfC, after we've discovered whether the community can come up with a solution to problematic mass creation itself. Or even a definition of problematic mass creation. I believe until we can answer those questions, discussing deletion is probably spinning our wheels.
This seems overcomplicated for what is ultimately: does a proposal deal with creating articles? Go ahead and propose it. Does it deal with deleting articles? Wait for the next RfC. Yes, all of them are going to be connected, which is why we're having both and not stopping at the end of this RfC. The collapsing by Valereee seems like an example of exactly why someone has been given the ability to moderate the discussion IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 5 October 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.
find and develop solutions to issues surrounding article creation at scale, with the second to be
on article deletions at scale. Creating a new CSD category pretty clearly falls into the latter camp. Primefac ( talk) 20:00, 5 October 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 Interstellarity at 15:26, 2 October 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
The Watergate scandal article seems to be covered for the AP2 sanction, but it was placed before the date was changed from 1932 to 1992. I am hoping that someone can clarify if the sanction should be removed.
Are the sanctions still required? The talk page is extremely quiet and a glance at the article history shows nothing that the pending changes isn't handling and might even be handled better by standard semi protection. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I think a lot of the issue here is some poorly-worded templates. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Ds § Finally handling "legacy topic areas". Arbs, would anything I've proposed there require ArbCom sign-off to implement? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 09:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Notes
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 21:52, 8 October 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.