Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Elements

Case Elements Clerk request

Request for a Clerk action.

The edit [1] adds a "Joint statement by Double sharp and Sandbh", formatted as a bolded paragraph title (amidst other edits).

Please check for correct forms. (it is als very disturbing, but that's not for clergy)

It does not show in the TOC
It does not have proper confirmation/signing by the second editor (ie, Double sharp)
And in general: what is the position of such a declaration? Correct way of going?

(ping User:Dreamy_Jazz) -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I confirm that I would like to confirm that statement also (simply unsure about proper procedure). Double sharp (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to 1, the best course of action is, @Sandbh: do you want to make it a section instead of bolded text. I would prefer that they (or they don't) make this change it as it's their statement, and its not an issue which needs immediately dealing with.

In response to 2, the confirmation should be placed in Double sharp's section. They shouldn't edit outside their section, so that's why I suggest that. For that, I'll ping Double sharp to add such a confirmation (if they agree to it) at their convenience in their section (something like "I confirm I agree to the above statement by Sandbh", or anything which says you agree to it)

In response to 3, it looks good. I can see it being useful for the arbitrators to see that both users agree to the declaration. The declaration itself looks good, with an understanding that both users have agreed to cease the problems, which I think will be useful for the arbitrators to see, as I'm sure that if the users agree to calm things down and sort things out, arbitration then isn't needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz:, re (2): done. Double sharp (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz:, re (1): done. Sandbh (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Protocol query

Dreamy_Jazz, I am not sure what the way ahead is now.

Double sharp and I have resolved our differences.

Four editors at ArbCom raised concerns about the conduct of DePiep.

In this context, the remaining discussion at WP:ELEM concerned a request, "that we all reflect on our own problematic behaviours while doing so" i.e. seeking to resolve our differences.

WP:ELEM member R8R asked DePiep to do so, since there were remaining issues of concern about the latter's conduct. DePeip declined to accomodate this request.

DePiep invited me to comment. I did so, concluding with a request to DePiep to so reflect, and consider the way forward.

I gather R8R has now reluctantly requested ArbCom to consider the case, as far as DePiep's conduct is concerned, as has DePiep.

At this point, would the filing effectively split into two, one part re content-policy-conduct resolved, with the other part on conduct, unresolved?

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, I can't split the cases. If the case is accepted, it will focus on the part which needs arbitration. Based on that, the arbitrators will likely just deal with the other part on conduct. If the case is accepted, the arbitrators may choose to change the name of the case, however, for arbitration cases re multiple user's conduct the name of the case is usually the topic area it is in. The reason why I also say the case request can't be split is because its so intertwined, that even if case requests could be split at this stage, it would be impractical and difficult to split the arbitrator's comments and users statement's into the two different cases. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Just backing up what DJ is saying here. If we do take the case, the first phase is the evidence phase, and the rest of the case follows the evidence to reach whatever conclusion the committee deems appropriate. That could be anything from full site bans to nothing at all or anything in between. That being said, we certainly will not be resolving the underlying content dispute or disputes, the committee only deals with behavioral issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI's and AN's

Case header and Statements may be inaccurate (e.g. re AN/ANI, Archives).

As of 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC).

1. AN Dispute_on_an_RFC 2020 Jul 21 init Archive 13#Unacceptable_behaviour

2. ANI Misuse_of_sources_by_Sandbh, 2020 Aug 4

3. ANI Incivil_behaviour_by_DP, 2020 Sep 27

4. ANI UNcivil_behavior_by_DP 2020 Sep 28

5. ANI Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of Sandbh 2020 Oct 24

6. AN Sandbh,_round_4 2020 Nov 11

7. AN Multiple_breaches_of_WP:ASPERSIONS_by_Ds 2020 Nov 12

8. Usertalk User_talk:EdChem#The_ANI_thread_about_Sandbh One of several threads where EdChem gallantly tried to mediate

-DePiep (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014) (December 2020)

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.

Original discussion

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 14:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: [2]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Does the standard DS 1RRs ~~exclude~~include all of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO? The DS 1RR notices, eg Template:American politics AE, states solely:

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.

Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.

Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.

However, the WP policy WP:1RR makes reference to ArbCom's 1RRs and states:

Additional restrictions on reverting may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, under arbitration enforcement [...]. These restrictions are generally called 1RR. The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert".

(emphasis mine). But none of ArbCom's procedures or templates make reference to WP:3RRNO, and the "clear vandalism" exemption that the templates does provide does not encapsulate everything on that list (indeed, it is only bullet #4). Extra exemptions from 3RRNO include copyright violations, material illegal in the US like "child pornography and links to pirated software" & BLP violations.

To add: There is a practical impact here. My query stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Full_protection_and_certain_politicians_(you_know_the_ones), where there was a mention of Special:Diff/987532889. An admin suggested that reverting this would burn an editor's 1 revert of the day, even though it's clearly an unsourced BLP violation, and thus should be exempt under WP:3RRNO. But it's not in the DS 1RR exemptions.

Awilley that was worded in a bit of a double negative way. I meant to word it in the positive (i.e. do the exclusions of WP:3RRNO apply). Same answer, but... amended. It's also worth noting that this discrepancy is in all arbitration templates, not just this one. ie {{IPA AE}}, {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}, and the generic wrappers too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: btw, if the net effect of the DS 1RR is to add "enforcing current consensus" to the list of exemptions, does that mean it's not part of the 3RR policy? So, even on these 1RR articles, an editor can still only enforce up to 3 current consensus per day until they're in breach of 3RR? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

Does the standard DS 1RRs exclude all of the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO?" No. Those exemptions apply to all reverts everywhere, even if it's not explicitly stated in this particular 1RR template. The net effect of the wording in that template is to add "enforcing clearly established consensus" to the list of other exemptions like reverting vandalism and child pornography. To that effect it's worded poorly. It might be better to just say something along the lines of: In addition to the exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO, edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from the edit-warring restriction. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. That's my opinion at least. ~Awilley (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Responding to the example edit in question: it is wildly inappropriate and I'm not defending it, but it was not unsourced. The convention in that article is to have all the citations in the body of the article and no citations in the Lead. And the conspiracy bit is supported in the body at Donald Trump#Promotion of conspiracy theories. And the user added a citation to the Lead here anyway. I'd still say it's a BLP violation for reasons of WP:WEIGHT, but I don't know that it's obvious enough to be able to invoke the exemption. If that example doesn't do it for you, it's not hard to find other borderline examples of unhelpful edits whose reverts wouldn't qualify for a 3RRNO exemption. ~Awilley (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Any restriction based on revert counting offers a first-mover advantage. It seems to me that the default should be to enforce BRD, rather than arguing how many angels are dancing on the head of a particular revert. BRD is a long-standing consensus view of how Wikipedia should work, and it puts the onus on the editor seeking to make the change, to achieve consensus.

The exception should be removal of controversial or negative material, where we should err on the side of exclusion unless the sourcing is robust.

I feel that there is too much emphasis on counting reverts and not enough on taking these disputes to Talk and working them out through methodical discussion and analysis. That's the behaviour we're trying to drive, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014): Clerk notes

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

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014): Arbitrator views and discussion

The exceptions listed at 3RRNO are designed to be "obvious and uncontroversial" and therefore reasonable for any individual to make without any repercussions. I would fully expect them to apply as exceptions to DS 1RR articles. The question of that specific edit - well, in my eyes it's a clear violation "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" with regards to a BLP, so I would certainly understand an individual attempting to revert under the exception as it certainly adds a strong bias to the article. Of course American Political articles are an absolute hot potato at present and reverting is not the way to solve the issue. Worm^TT(talk) 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
All sanctions and restrictions are to be enforced with common sense, and the standard exceptions are standard exceptions for a reason. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no consistent way to do have a xRR sanction without favoring either the first or second mover, and the use of 1RR accentuates this problem. The situation is bad enough with ordinary sanctions; having DS restrictions greatly complicates things, and can lead to a situation which prevents a fair solution. NYBrad proposes that all sanctions be enforced with common sense; I agree with him, but the DS regime makes common sense inapplicable. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with WTT and NYB here although I do agree with Awilley's assessment for the particular edit in question considering that sources for these claims were in the body of the article at that time. ON a more practical level, I think there seems to be agreement that anything that is exempt from 3RR should usually also exempt from 1RR or 0RR but what change or amendment is sought here specifically? Regards So Why 09:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with WTT and NYB's assessments. Maxim_(talk) 15:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale (January 2021)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Special:Diff/934849515

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Special:Diff/934849515

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Special:Diff/934849515

Relax restrictions.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please replace my 1 article a week AFC submission with a particular number I can create per week, day or month etc.

Tier 1, all topics such as BUAs and Domesday places that aren't higher.
Tier 2, former civil parishes.
Tier 3, current (and recently abolished) civil parishes (as well as Welsh communities and unparished areas) (around 500-600).
Tier 4, settlement parishes (including those that are as such Welsh communities and unparished areas) (~60).

Times
Tiers	Tier 3	Tier 4
6 months	~3 a day	~2 a week
12 months	~1.5 a day	~1 a week

I'm not specifying a specific number here since in my last appeal I was advised to "ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions" well I have attempted to do that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC and although there is a consensus against a bot creating them (unless perhaps someone knows how to correctly program it) there it does seem like as long as the articles have meaningful content people are fine. Please specify how many of such articles I should be allowed to create per week, month or day etc.

Can I also have the appeal time modified back to 6 months please, namely so that I can appeal on 1 July.

Can I also be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages as long as I keep in mind WP:RDELETE and WP:COSTLY.

I don't think the move restriction really needs to be removed given I can file as many WP:RMT or WP:RM as I want if we do approve the ability to create directly as proposed a move exception should be to move pages from draftspace or userspace etc to mainspace in accordance with such creation limits. If we don't relax the creations restrictions significantly (say only a few a week) then I'd suggest allowing me to move pages as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least 7 days since although I can still do this now people might question if I'm not allowed to move them myself and have to use RMT for move requests I close. However if one of the tier 3 options (or similar) happens then I'd say that this would be unnecessary since I should be encouraged to focus on creating good articles rather than potentially rushing it in order to do other things.

@CaptainEek: the appeal isn't that complicated its just that I have given multiple options and I'm wandering what one will be successful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Marston, Milwich and Pillerton Priors for (current) settlement parishes, Great and Little Wigborough for a non settlement CP and Stratton, Gloucestershire for a settlement that was a CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I agree that the RFC isn't positive but as noted there doesn't seem to be consensus that they shouldn't be created at all just that they need decent content. Those examples given above do surely contain decent content. Why shouldn't these articles exist? Why can't England have a full house of its lower level units like many other countries do (I can't find any other than Wales that don't) and why should I be penalized due to my incompetence a decade ago? Yes I accept that English parishes don't have as much significance as some similar units in other countries but they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines. What is the problem with one of the lower options like 1 parish a week? Are there any other suggestions like allowing me ask an admin to "approve" articles I draft? Please just something? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Would a modification of (1) allow a set number or creation or all of them on the condition that there is consensus for it (this would be assessed by an arbitrator after the RFC) and/or (2) allowing me to ask (a specified set of users like AC members or admins) to "approve" an article meaning they can move it into mainspace or remove the redirect. The latter would give peace of mind to you about floods of poor quality articles and it would give peace of mind to in that I know I'm not going to get into trouble for such articles. The latter would work in the sense that would create an article in draftspace (or behind a redirect if a redirect has substantial history) and would go to the specified user(s) talk page and ask about the article and they could either (a) decline or (b) accept, if they accept they would either move the article to mainspace (or for a redirect remove the redirect) or say I can move it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: In response to Iridescent's point I'd also note that its the civil parishes themselves not the councils that should be created, I specifically stated at the RFC that parish councils should not be created also User:PamD said last year that parishes are significant and worthy of articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Seriously? Even with the articles I have produced above? Are you really saying that dispute every effort to get things right you're just dismissing them all not being good enough? Really??? I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit? I can't see any basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist. Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time. No one else that I'm aware of has had to obtain consensus for creating a few hundred articles manually and no other country that I'm aware of has been required to obtain consensus for creating its lowest level units so why have special pleading here? If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them? We should base things on the merits of the situation not on bad fortune of long past actions. I even had autopatrolled back in 2010 when I didn't even understand how that worked now that I have more understanding and I create much better articles I believe I could use that though I'm not asking for it now. If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Thankyou for you're reply, I'm not convinced that if they existed they would be merged, a few probably would but most wouldn't also I still doubt that if I were creating the articles with meaningful content anyone would seriously question it. Regarding the last point this isn't really the case, I'm saying that I can ask you (or some other user(s)) to approve any number of articles. I'm not very keen on the AFC submission process and I though it was only temporary until the next appeal, as was noted 2 years ago AFC is backlogged and I think its babyish for an editor of my experience to use it, can I suggest if this appeal isn't successful that we just revoke the AFC submission access namely something like "The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined furthermore the ability to submit articles to AFC is also revoked". As far as I'm aware requests for loosening can only be made every 6 months (or year in my case) but a proposal to revoke could be made at anytime. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: If you feel explicit consensus is required to create them then maybe something like "conditional decline" would be more appropriate for if I do gain consensus so that we don't need to wait until next year if I do later succeed in getting consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: regarding the other things if we agree to a 1 week creation then what about the other things like creating redirects and DAB pages and reducing the appeal time back to 6 months? And what about page moves for closing move requests, as I said above while I can technically close requests if I have to file a RMT to complete it people may wander. Given that I may also need to move drafts to mainspace in accordance with the creation rule would something alone the limes of "Crouch, Swale may only move pages (1) in his userspace, (2) as part of his 1 article a week rule or (3) as a result of a RM discussion that has been listed for at least a week". Note for 2 I use "as part of" since if I am given page mover in the future I may need to move a redirect out of the way to make way for a draft. The 1st, moves in my userspace is already in place, the 2nd would probably be needed as part of the creation process anyway but any views on the 3rd since I have filed so many move requests do you agree it would be helpful for me to be involved in closing some? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Given this has remained quiet for a while are you going to propose a motion for the 1 creation a week or are you going to see if anyone has any other views? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: By "revoke" I was meaning prohibit me to submit anymore (other than possibly any of my 1 a week that I haven't yet done). I couldn't really see myself editing happily in the future unless we find ways to deal with the missing parishes. I'm a bit unsure why WTT doesn't accept the proposal that I can ask someone like them to approve articles since that would mean the articles would only be approved at the agreement of someone like WTT so as long as the articles were acceptable who cares how many I create? But if the concern is frequency then allowing me to create 1 article a week directly would definitely be better. Obviously if we do find a way to create the parishes I'd still appeal my ban every 6 months or year but I'd be a lot happier and would be far less likely to push for anything. We probably need to ask how the articles can be created then? By bot? there seems to be a consensus against that with respect to technical (and also possibly quality) issues. By me directly? that's the main question here but it seems people aren't allowing that. By approval of an arbitrator (or similar) that's the latest proposal but WTT has rejected it. Another option I can think of is sorting the missing articles by county and users who are interested in general or in specific county could create some and county's Wikiprojects could be notified (or the county articles) to recruit editors, if we got 10 editors each would only need to create around 50 for this to be done and if we got 50 ediotrs each would only need to create around 10. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@BDD: Note that the RFC is still open though the tag has been removed since it was started over a month ago (now 2 months, I hadn't noticed the tag had been removed!) so I'm not really sure what to do though I suppose I could continue discussing things there but it probably won't get any outside audience. As a side note my appeal wasn't a few hours early I was unblocked at 17:47 (even though it was enacted at 16:49 Special:Diff/817961869) 31.12.2017 and appealed a few hours late in July the next year because I was at an event and didn't want to cut that short for the sake of a few hours. My other appeals were at 17:48 at the end of December 2018, July 2019 and December 2019, in the last appeal I was told I had to wait until 1 January 2021. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Almost exactly a year ago I said (in part) This wouldn't be Crouch, Swale's second chance - this would be the fourth or fifth loosening of the unblock conditions but there is still no evidence that they understand why the restrictions were imposed in the first place.[3] Everyone is one year older and there have been many changes in the world since then, but I am still not seeing any evidence that Crouch, Swale understands why they were placed under these restrictions and no evidence they understand why previous appeals were declined. The request to be allowed to appeal every six months speaks volumes to this last point imo. So I recommend that this appeal is declined. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Crouch, Swale: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale: Arbitrator views and discussion

This appeal does not appear to have a glimmer of recognizance about why the restriction was placed, and contains nothing that would incline me to grant it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Fuchs, and add that this appeal is so complex I think its enforcement and implementation would be a nightmare. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Having read through the RfC I don't see any consensus of the kind called for by the current restriction. I'm sympathetic to the frustration of having to operate under an edit restriction but the gulf between Crouch, Swale's desired kind of article and the community's receptivity to those kinds of articles seems to remain. As such this restriction still appears to be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: let's imagine that we agree to remove your AfC requirement (not saying we or even I will). Could you imagine yourself editing happily with your other restrictions for the indefinite future? By indefinite I don't mean 12 months. I mean 24, 48, 60, or more months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale: I too am an editor in a niche topic area so I am generally of the "whatever floats your boat" disposition when it comes to how competent volunteers spend their time. Want to add categories to pages? Sure, go for it. Want to make sure dashes and emdashes are used correctly? Have fun. Want to sift through new articles as quality control? Hey me too. The problem here is that your enthusiasm for your particular niche area far outstrips the community's excitement for it.
If you think of an excitement scale for new articles that goes from 10 (need to create this article right now) to -10 (need to delete this article right now) you're seemingly at a 10. The community's excitement level seems to be closer to a -1. If you were say at a 2 or a 3 about creating parish articles you could happily go along without anyone bothering you despite the mismatch; in fact that seems to be what the restrictions have done, throttle you back to the enthusiasm of someone who is at a 2 or 3. However, you're still a 10. For me the two options are either for you to find contentment with being at a 2 or a 3 or to find a new way to express your enthusiasm for this topic. I just don't see the community, in any near term time horizon, moving its tolerance level and so I, as an elected representative of the community, can't see myself supporting the kinds of changes you seem to be looking for. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I've spent a little time re-acquainting myself with this situation and reviewing that RFC and I have to agree with what's already been said, the community doesn't seem to want this, and I find the request rather tone-deaf and not compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the RfC consensus seems to be against creating rafts of "civil parish" articles, which as others have noted above, weighs strongly against this request. @Crouch, Swale: bearing this in mind, can you point us to the three best articles you've created in the past year that typify the work you would like to do if the restriction were relaxed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm awaiting more community input here, but at the moment I agree with David Fuchs. Discretionary sanctions aren't as complicated as the scheme proposed here. Katie^talk 13:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreeing with David Fuchs here, I see nothing in this appeal that should lead us to a different conclusion than last year. If anything, in the RFC linked to users seem to largely agree that such articles should not be created. Regards So Why 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: Whether "they clearly do still meet our inclusion guidelines" seems to be one of the points where people disagree with you. The RFC you started basically presupposes consensus in favor of such articles but in the last ARCA, it was pretty clear that "clearly" is not the right word to describe consensus wrt to these articles. As Iridescent for example wrote, "there's no indication that anyone other than you has ever thought that separate articles for parish councils is a sensible idea". So, before we can consider lifting any such restrictions, this content-related question needs to be addressed first and that is outside our purview. Imho, the correct way to address this would first be to establish consensus on all articles you wish to create (i.e. whether each subject is worthy of inclusion) and only if there is a consensus-approved list of articles that actually need to be created, we can discuss whether you should be the one creating them. Regards So Why 20:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Just like WTT says below, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding to still exist despite multiple comments. With an additional week gone by and no further input by the community to demonstrate otherwise, my original point stands and thus I have to vote to decline this request. Regards So Why 15:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale approached me on my talk page about this - I told him it was a bad idea. I'll re-iterate that. The community's views do not match Crouch, Swale's views on creation of these articles. Crouch, Swale has been topic banned due to his actions in this area, and given the distance between the community views and his views - I have no doubt any relaxation of the topic ban will lead to an increase in problematic behaviour. I firmly decline this request. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale, yes, seriously. We have relaxed your restrictions as far as I am comfortable doing so. Consistently, I have sought to make it clear that you that I would not be supporting you creating large numbers of articles on UK settlements. We have allowed you to create some at a significantly reduced rate, and I am glad you are using that sensibly - however it is still clear that the community does not agree that the large numbers of articles you want to create should exist. As to your arguments:
1. "I thought this was supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit", I'm sure this point is rhetorical, but I will answer it anyway. Yes, anyone can edit, until they can't. In other words, this is an encyclopedia built by a social group - and if you cannot work with that social group, you can no longer edit. Which brings me to your next point.
2. "I can't see any basis in policy etc for why these articles shouldn't exist" - One of out top level policies is WP:CONSENSUS. The RfC you started showed a consensus that they probably shouldn't exist and that you shouldn't be judging whether they should.
3. "Is there really any point in me trying to do the right thing if all you are going to do is dismiss every attempt to do so? Every attempt to try to adjust by behaviour seems to have been dismissed and I feel I'm just wasting my time" I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hoped that allowing you free access to the majority of the encyclopedia as well as limited access to creating articles in the area you have a history of problematic behaviour would be sufficient. However, I go back to my point 2 years ago - "to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby"
4. "If these articles already existed or I wasn't banned I have no doubt that no one would rush to delete/merge them or ban me from creating them?" There, we disagree. Articles would be deleted eventually, and if you were mass creating against consensus, you would be banned. Similarly, I am looking at your appeal on it's current merits, and what I see is "your view does not match the community view" and therefore your appeal to mass create articles against the consensus should be declined
5. "If you're really not happy with me creating these myself why isn't the suggestion that I can draft them and ask you (or another admin etc) to approve them?" This is status quo (although not me, or an admin) at a throttled rate of ~50 articles per year, that you may create articles that can be reviewed and submitted.
I hope this clarifies things for you Crouch, Swale, but I do not intend to go round in circles, when we have had very similar discussions in the past. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to hear the views of the community and other arbs, but I could accept removing the AFC requirement, as long as the throttle of 1 per week remains. Worm^TT(talk) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale you still seem to be missing the point - you have pre-supposed that the articles should be all created, which goes against existing consensus and are unwilling to listen to the many editors telling you that they should not be. No single editor should be forced to check your contributions, especially if you were mass creating articles against consensus. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I am open to removing the AfC requirement without changing the throttle level. Crouch, Swale has demonstrated that he can make quality articles in this area. But that RfC is extremely recent, and should have made him think again before requesting a lifting of restrictions the moment he was allowed to do so again ~~(it looks like he was even a few hours early)~~. Here's my advice to you, Crouch, Swale: impress us. Continue to make quality articles within your restrictions. And take a step back. Understand why the restrictions are in place, why the recent RfC was met with skepticism. I'm not saying I'd automatically decline if you ask again as soon as you're able, but strongly consider not doing so. Let the merits of your editing convince us and the community that lifting the restrictions will be in the encyclopedia's best interests. I genuinely hope you're able to do so. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale, thank you for the clarification, but the RfC still being technically open just reinforces what I said. In terms of "a few hours early", I was just referring to the most recent appeal and the requirement to wait for 1 January 2021. I could've sworn I saw an earlier timestamp above, but it's possible I was looking at something else. Again, basic point still stands. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I would decline both requests. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the other arbs on declining the requests. I also don't feel that the appeal demonstrates an understanding of why the existing restriction is in force. Furthermore, I would strongly caution against overly complicated ("bespoke") sanctions on the grounds that they are very difficult to properly interpret or enforce. Maxim_(talk) 20:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Word limit

I noticed this in the clerk's notes:

"All participants in this case request are granted a 500-word extension (in addition to the original 500 word limit) for the purpose of replying to arbitrators only."

In my opinion this should become standard procedure. It has the beneficial result of focusing participants more on on answering arbitrators and less on answering each other. It also removes an excuse for ignoring an arbitrator: "gosh darn it, I really wanted to answer that question that really looks like I have no good answer for, but alas, I am as 492 words! (cries crocodile tears)" --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the input – it's under discussion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should exclude replies to arbitrators from the regular word count, and that this should be standard procedure. Word limits have been a topic of regular discussion for as long as I've been on clerks-l, and while we don't all agree on exactly what to change, there is broad agreement that the existing structure isn't right for every scenario. A lot has changed since ArbCom heard 100+ cases per year, and reading case requests isn't the burden it once was. – bradv🍁 02:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, including with Bradv's simple formula "exclude replies to arbitrators from the regular word count". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"Passing" column

On the Motions page, there are tables with a "Passing" column. I don't think these should show a red "X" for "not passing" unless/until there are sufficient opposes or abstains to prevent passage. It would be better to use the grey "-" icon. The red "X" wrongly suggests that a motion is meeting sufficient opposition to doom it, and of the motions I'm looking at on the page so far (as of this writing) that doesn't appear to be true of more than perhaps one of them (the first, which has been superseded by a replacement motion with more support – while it does not have a lot of explicit opposes, the two proposals in that subsection are mutually exclusive). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I can certainly see the point of that. The table code is a slightly modified version of what is used for proposed decisions, but obviously arbitrator motions / arca arb motions are different. I'll go ahead and make this change in the template. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Schweet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I've also added a parameter which allows a motion to be marked as "Not passing" if a competing motion passes. This is to keep the behavior with the first, as this motion won't be passing unless the other one does not pass. I've also implemented the grey rows for motions which can yet pass, but have not yet reached a majority. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Worked it up into a science now. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny

This my question is partially inspired by the recent AE case. It seems the topic falls under ARBEE, but I propose to think about additional restrictions. The reason is that Navalny, who the most influential opponent of the Russian President Putin, and who barely survived an assassination attempt committed by the Russian secret service, is currently in a prison under a totally laughable and illegal pretext. He voluntarily returned to Russia, despite the fact that he knew that he would be immediately arrested and upon return. I think any poorly checked information may harm him, and Wikipedia can help this brave and courageous man by applying additional sourcing restrictions. I propose a total prohibition of marginally reliable or questionable sources in any article about Navalny until he is released, and prohibition any information found in a single RS without independent confirmation (we are not a news agency, so every important fact will be reproduced later by at least one additional source, and if not, it probably does not deserve inclusion). In connection to that, I am wondering what should I do. Should I start ARCA, or a procedure is different?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The page is currently subject to discretionary sanctions under the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe arbitration case, as a talk page notice indicates. I believe you can request a specific page editing restriction under DS at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I see at least one other recent request of this kind there. Since your request is fairly unorthodox, you might be directed to file it at WP:AE itself, where a group of admins can discuss it -- I am not sure. But I think it's worth starting with WT:AE. Nsk92 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, am not sure I'm comfortable as an AE admin to implement something of the sort. I realize it's about one article (or a small set therein) as opposed to a wide ranging topic area, but to the best of my knowledge, we have two sourcing requirements currently in effect on the project: WP:MEDRS (passed by the community) and WP:APLRS (passed by the Committee). In this case, as in most cases, I'd say the Committee route is probably the more viable (not to mention, the more expedient) one. El_C 05:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, did I understand you correctly that you propose me to go to ARCA?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul, I'm saying that, in my view, that would be the better (and faster) alternative over that of tabling that proposal to the community, instead. El_C 06:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:AN/ANI? Can I do that if the topic is already under ARBEE?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN, to be specific, and yes, yes you could. El_C 06:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixing a typo

On re-reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes to check something that was mentioned elsewhere, I noticed that one of my own comments had a typo ("describing one was 'closed as keep'", where "describing one as 'closed as keep'" was clearly meant), so I corrected it.

User:Dreamy Jazz has reverted the correction, twice. They have asserted on my talk page that volunteers are prohibited from making such a correction, that "IAR does not apply to modifying [sic] discussions closed nearly 8 years ago" (they failed to provide evidence that IAR has such an exclusion, when asked for it), and implied that fixing such simple typos in archives does not improve the project. In their latest edit summary, they instruct "don't revert clerk actions in arbspace".

So what is the process for having a simple typo fixed, and why does it have to be this difficult? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, this is very much a mountain out of a molehill. I'll flip your "why does it have to be this difficult" on it's head and change it to - "why does it have to happen at all"? What benefit is there in updating that text - it's not an improvement of the encyclopedia for readers. On the flip side - those archives are designed as a preservation of what was said at the time. This typo fix may not change the understanding of what was said - but there is a benefit to keeping things preserved - mistakes and all. Worm^TT(talk) 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, fixing the typo will improve the understanding of what was said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I believe you mean that fixing the typo will improve the understanding of what was meant - however what was said included the typo, and should therefore remain in the record. Worm^TT(talk) 14:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I meant "will improve the understanding of what was said". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Getting questions from arbs

Related to the earlier updates about workshop pages, could I please beg for ArbCom to introduce a designated place for Arbs to ask questions or give feedback? Not questions about specific evidence, etc., but general questions or requests, of the sort where you say "I don't understand how X is relevant. Can someone please explain?" or "When we accepted the case, X was a big deal, but now everyone's talking about Y instead. Does anyone have evidence about X?" Or maybe even "We think we have enough information about X; it shouldn't be necessary to post any more information on that point."

One of the challenges as an editor contributing to a case is that it's difficult to know whether the information you have is interesting or helpful, and it's almost impossible to know whether there's something you need. (Clerks, please feel free to move this comment to any suitable page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean I'm certainly unafraid to ask questions and definitely plan to continue to do so (having done some of this in the workshops of the cases since I became an arb). That said, I think it's important to level set expectations. It's unlikely that more than the drafting arbs will be closely following a case. This is not because Arbs are lazy but because there are so many competing demands on Arb time and following a case as it goes on takes some extra time - for instance you have to read via diffs (not my favorite way to read) because people might make small changes/additions as they go along. Is it better to have more arbs following along with a case or participating in the 3-5 ongoing issues the committee is working on behind the scenes at any given time on top of whatever block appeals are open at a given moment? Truth be told, I'd suggest it's the stuff behind the scenes. So instead you're only going to get a small handful of arbs paying attention to the evidence as it goes on. They can certainly offer feedback but I do think it's important to level set about just how much feedback there will be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the request was as much, "please can there be a specific place I can look to see if there is any general feedback" as "please can we have more feedback". Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right I did answer the latter more than the former though I was thinking about both. When I've asked questions I've generally done it as part of the workshop proposals or when that was function, created my own section to do so. A distinction section could have some value. I'll make sure other arbs see this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Pyxis Solitary, please strike the personal attacks from your statement. Dreamy Jazz, I understand that you already closed the Case Workshops discussion, but I would ask that you strike her comments if she does not do so herself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC) "personal attacks" is more inclusive Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut I beg to differ. As a professional linguist I cannot find even the vaguest hint in the text of the comments from Pyxis Solitary that they can be construed as personal attacks. Neither within the scope of WP:NPA, nor in any other context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get it either. Nobody is identified by name in those remarks, and there were sixteen proposals presented so it isn't obvious to me that any one person is singled out by those remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this stance. Certainly it is against policy to attack a group of editors as she did with this text:

...the Workshop was a travesty because it became a litter box of people who had been obviously chomping at the bit for an opportunity to dig up every grievance they had with one of the parties -- allegations and diffs were plastered on the page that had zero relevance to the specific subject of the case. The holier-than-thous vying to be the one who had a final sway in the ArbCom decision, composing and recomposing dictums for ArbCom, was a farce, with the cherry on the icing being the participation from editors with a history of warnings, blocks, and I-bans.[4]

WP:Personal attacks are: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links."

There is no evidence that any of the participants at the workshop who brought evidence against the complainee acted in anything but good faith, or provided any evidence which was beyond the scope of the initial complaint.[5] Pyxis specifically refers to me, SandyGeorgia, and Newimpartial.[6] The fact that this was an uncivil comment is beyond debate, so again, please strike it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

First off::A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Jehochman [7]

Secondly, in those diffs which here are taken totally out of context, I see nothing but statements of fact, so between me, you and Beeblebrox there are very different opinions and I tend to side with those of experienced, respected users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's more I want to say here, but I have to add that in response to Jehochman's comment in the diff Kudpung provided, Goldenring said, "I don't buy that."[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion, and find Kudpung’s implied slur above (“respected users”) worse than anything in that which the original complaint is about. As to the original complaint, any time an editor refers to my “block log”, it says more about them than me (specifically, their diligence and thoroughness in investigating claims they make) and is a thing that speaks for itself, so I can’t really be fussed about that. The rest of what the original poster said, if referencing me, is demonstrably untrue, and I’m happy with letting the reader decide on that.

Nonetheless, the post in question offers an example of precisely the kind of mudslinging on Workshop (and all Arb pages) that the arbs and clerks need to get a better handle on, so I hope you can agree with that, Beeblebrox. The original and inappropriate personalization was hatted by a clerk; is that enough? Are redacting or removing not options? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a continuation of similar behavior by Kudpung which Thryduulf observed.[9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Out context the passage from Pyxis Solitary is uncivilly worded and largely incorrect but does not, out of context, contain any personal attacks. "Zero relevance to the specific subject of the case." is opinion though as, despite explicit requests arbcom did not during the evidence or workshop phases clarify what the scope of the case was.

I agree with SandyGeorgia that "Kudpung’s implied slur above (“respected users”) worse than anything in that which the original complaint is about." and I think it's time we consider an interaction ban. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Echoing some others, I don't see a personal attack there, inasmuch as no person was named. However, there is quite a bit of daylight between "I'm allowed to say this" and "it's wise to say this". There are many other better, more constructive ways that sentiment could've been conveyed (e.g., "I witnessed editors in a workshop prioritizing personal grudges, to the detriment of the case and the encyclopedia."). --BDD (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- The holier-than-thous vying to be the one who had a final sway in the ArbCom decision, composing and recomposing dictums for ArbCom, was a farce, with the cherry on the icing being the participation from editors with a history of warnings, blocks, and I-bans. This at least seems to me to have been a casting of WP:ASPERSIONS if nothing else, particularly considering that the comment on which it was based was collapsed by a case clerk as unproductive. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

query

@MontanaBW, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for clarification here. Exactly what did I do that I deserved to be insulted, ignored, accused of wrongdoing, then ignored again? How did I "need the short, sharp, shock to shape up their approach to a situation", since the only people he's short and sharp with are those who need it? (I do admire the alliteration, though.) —valereee (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Montanabw not sure the ping worked first time —valereee (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Short, sharp shock. E Eng 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and we also have shape, and then situa(sh)un, along with a second in approatch and sitchuation. Very nice, altogether. —valereee (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Also I think beheading is a drastic correction of me being unable to figure out the date/timestamp portion of the unsigned template. Pretty sure that won't make me any better at subst'ing. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I, too, am concerned by Montanabw's analogy. It pretty much says that RexxS, the 'dad', is always right and editors who have are subject to harsh words from him are the ones who need to step back and re-evaluate. No editor has the position of always being right. No editor is consensus. No editor has the right to speak down to another editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is what Montana's analogy means. She says in a clarifying comment,"So feel free to propose a different word for “person with wisdom and experience who helps the encyclopedia by use of a specialized set of tools.” This is Montana's position (and not Rexx's clearly), and describes a pretty common situation on Wikipedia. It's probably not useful to attribute any other meaning to a statement other than what was meant. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee:, I was not addressing any interactions between you and RexxS. I also did not imply anyone deserves to be beheaded, (Gilbert & Sullivan works tended to be viewed as comic entertainment in their time) I was referencing people feeling that someone “bit their head off,“ so I apologize if the satire was misconstrued. As for @ProcrastinatingReader:, Please read what I actually wrote, not what you are reading into it. “Dad“ isn’t always right, but he usually means well. And sometimes people get mad at “Dad” for calling them out on their mistakes, which is what I think happened to you here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  It was a joke. Trying to insert a bit of levity to reduce the tension in a difficult situation, maybe inconsiderately. I know no one was actually implying I should be beheaded. My point, and I shouldn't have veered off course from it, was that no, I did not need that short sharp shock. If you think RexxS only delivers that to people who deserve it, which is what you seem to have said, I believe you may be mistaken. —valereee (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  - And good people sometimes misunderstand one another, as here. I’ll go look at my comment again on the main page, and if I didn’t say he “usually“ is sharp with people who “usually” deserve it, I’ll clarify a touch. However it was not my intent to make an all or nothing statement, nor do I imply that any human is God, (my own dad was certainly imperfect, but the analogy I think still fits). At least for those of us who are editors (OK, Boomers...) of a certain age.Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, responding here because I'm out of space over there, and I don't think I'm saying anything the arbs needs to take into account. Okay, I'll accept that as a possibility. An edit summary other than 'rm' might have made that clearer. :) Look, the inept comment was something anyone could lose their temper and say when they think someone is being intentionally obtuse. Instead of going into his talk red hot I slept on it first, and I left a fairly mild statement there. If he'd offered even a half-assed apology I probably wouldn't even remember the incident. I don't wish RexxS ill. I strongly prefer to try to get along with other editors and generally will back down from issues like this when it's me it's directed at, as I did with RexxS, twice. When I didn't get what I was looking for from him, I let it go. Twice. I am not RexxS's enemy here. I am not trying to get him desysopped. I just want him to treat well-intentioned experienced editors who are disagreeing with him as respected colleagues. —valereee (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

[OT?] Not sure about the specifics here (visiting from the thread below), but I never, for the life of me, could figure out how to apply a correct timestamp to {{unsigned}}, short of inserting it manually. I gathered there's a technical way to get it done, but it seems quite complicated, to me. I would never bother with it, as it stands. El_C 06:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C I couldn't even figure out how to insert it manually without breaking it. I tried multiple times -- I don't actually think a dozen was an exaggeration -- and still couldn't get it right. That was the problem. To someone who understands it, I think my attempts looked disingenuous. These subst templates, how do you even figure out how to fix them when you've broken them? It's hard for people to even tell you how you've broken them. I've had the experience of asking someone to help me figure out why I kept breaking one, and they had to question me closely on what markup I was using because with subst, you apparently can't actually know what the original markup used was. It disappears. Poof! This seems very strange to me. Isn't there any way we could make this more intuitive? —valereee (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha, Val, I don't know which I dislike more: Template:unsigned or that idiot SineBot. Frankly, the two were made for each other. One can only imagine in terror the terrifying, terrible and tyrannical robot offspring this match made in the depths of hell will one day produce. Who knew that this is how humanity ends... //Shudder. El_C 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of robot offspring... E Eng 19:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C...omg...or how Wikipedia ends! ...an unholy alliance between Template:unsigned and Sinebot could totally be how someone makes it look like you've either gone rogue or your account was hacked and needs to be globally locked, like, yesterday. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Val, definitely, by any means necessary — the fate of the world hangs in the balance! El_C 18:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

One week

A suggestion: in the next case, try just one week of evidence/analysis, no workshop. Two weeks is enough time for everyone to post their evidence and analysis and then fight for a week. I don't know if others share my perception that nothing helpful ever comes in that second week. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No workshop remains something that mixed support in the community and whether we have a workshop or not, at least for me, very much depends on the nature of the case. If we get another Kurds type case, for instance, I would want a workshop. As for one week of evidence I would want to think that over. There is a balance between giving people time and allow for deliberation and the process dragging on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

During the current case, I wanted to provide additional analytic context in response to another editor's analysis, and in order to do that, I needed to provide some additional contextual evidence. I suppose it's true enough that the committee could have performed the same analysis. In general, given that editors aren't necessarily engaging in Wikipedia daily, I feel a week may be too short, both in terms of finding available time and allowing for some degree of reactions. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I like the tweak we went with in this case of not allowing remedies to be proposed in the workshop. Good findings of fact are of much more value than eight different people saying they want to ban someone or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would hope that the committee considers to separate out evidence posting and evidence analysis stages. Keeping them together puts us in a rush, where – if additional evidence is posted on the last days of the particular stage – it leaves very less time for editors to analyse the evidence. It would be good to have one week for evidence posting. And then close it and move on to evidence analysis. Lourdes 02:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think two weeks of evidence is about as short a period as we should offer. While I understand the urge to limit the amount of time an arbitration case runs for, we should also take care to accommodate those who are dealing with things IRL and don't have the time to immediately fully participate in a stressful arbitration proceeding. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: if a case opened on the 1st and had the evidence phase run from the 7th to the 14th, that would give everyone two weeks to prepare but only one week to argue. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

L235, you're right. Actually I just want to have the evidence posting stopped at a particular day and one week additional given only for analysis. It would be good if the Arbcom considers this. Lourdes 14:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally am skeptical that evidence and analysis are these distinct things at least in the way we actually use them. For a long time analysis wasn't being used at all. Did this mean ArbCom got no analysis? No. It meant that the analysis was just introduced as evidence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree; the analysis section seems to be largely used now by editors to comment on evidence provided by others, whereas this used to be done in evidence sections or the talk page. For better or worse, participation in a global community requires patience. If we want people to consider and provide their views, we need to allow time for responses, and I also feel two weeks is about as short as it can get when everyone has their own personal schedules in different time zones. (I prefer my co-ordinators concept to reduce arguing and last-wordism, but it almost certainly wouldn't shorten the time spent on cases.) isaacl (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Format of arbitration

Regarding discussion on the talk page for the proposed decision of the current case: the current format of arbitration does have a bias towards trying to prove a positive ("the editor has done X") versus a negative ("the editor has never (or rarely) done X"), which is much harder and time-consuming to do. The current process relies on volunteers to present evidence in the form of diffs. This exacerbates the problems with one of the key underlying issues with English Wikipedia's ability to manage behavioural issues: its lack of hierarchy. Wikipedia's libertarian roots means many editors don't trust others to investigate and draw conclusions on their behalf. Thus the whole arbitration process is designed to enable anyone to present evidence and perform analysis, and the arbitrators are expected to base their judgments largely on what is presented. Any statement they make gets met with demands for diffs, which escalates the need for diffs to be put into evidence, which biases the result in favour of things that can be easily shown with a small set of diffs.

There are understandable reasons to be wary of ceding investigations to a small group, and of course having an explicit line of reasoning presented helps engender trust. However a small group who has volunteered to spend significant portions of time looking into disputes can be better suited for co-ordinating an in-depth investigation, thus resulting in an outcome based on a more holistic view. As long as English Wikipedia tries to crowd-source its investigations into behavioural disputes, instead of being willing to delegate to a trusted group, the results will continue to be biased towards specific types of outcomes. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like you are suggesting we actually have arbitration cops. That's a hard no from me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"small group who has volunteered to spend significant portions of time looking into disputes" ...so...Arbitrators? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I don't know that that's a fair characterization of what Isaacl is saying. As arbitrators, we explicitly disclaim any responsibility for investigating a dispute beyond the diffs that are presented by editors in the case. It sounds like the group Isaacl proposes would have that responsibility. Isaacl: It sounds like you want something akin to a group of special masters be appointed for each case with the responsibility to investigate even things that are not explicitly brought up or things that will take many more hours to investigate than most arbs are able to spend. I'm extremely skeptical that we're going to find a group of Wikipedians that is simultaneously: (1) highly qualified to investigate complex behavioral issues; (2) willing to volunteer for a highly time intensive task, with no compensation; (3) broadly trusted by the community; and (4) can handle anything close to the caseload that ArbCom would need it to be able to handle. If we can solve that problem, not only is this a good idea, we could transfer a large portion of ArbCom's responsibilities to this group. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The legal analogies aren't apt, in my view. These are behavioural issues being raised in a volunteer organization. In the real world, there is someone up the hierarchical chain who would listen to the concerns and views of affected parties, and who would seek out additional evidence as needed and resources permitted. I understand the disadvantages of this approach, and the difficulties in making it operational. My key point is that we need to understand the inherent drawbacks to whichever approach we follow, and deal with them as the costs of not following other ways. With crowd-sourced investigation, and a lack of trust to delegate, outcomes will be biased towards findings based on specific examples, which means they are biased towards findings that can be shown with a few diffs, versus ones that require evaluating the overall characteristics of editors based on a larger sampling of edits. This is what has led to all the arguing over word and diff limits, the number of people who weigh in on different sides of a dispute, and having enough time and space to respond to them all. It's why dealing with patterns of behaviour is so difficult. We do the best we can, but there's no getting around some of the limitations. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Scope of WP:A/I/PIA

I was wondering how broadly construed the topic area of WP:A/I/PIA is. I'll sometimes see cuisine-related edits whereby an editor removes mention of Israel from (for example) shakshouka or baba ghanoush. Normally I'd revert such an edit and move on, but I took pause when I saw such an edit twice in one day. (And, wondered if, for my part, I shouldn't make the revert.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe there is a request to ECP'd all articles related to Arab and its culture despite having no closing ties with Israel, such as Hajj, Arabs, Arabian cuisine, Kaaba, and other wierd requests, mainly by IPs. The reason of that is "the articles are related to Israel so it needs to be ECP". I think the scope of it needs to be limited in order to prevent IPs from requesting ECP only because it is related to Arab or Israel culture, or even islamic. 180.242.74.101 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

out of scope

Is there not an edit notice or something that says, "Don't file here unless you've exhausted all other remedies. This is literally the last place you want to bring a matter"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there is (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header/Warning which is shown when you press the blue file this case button though not shown if you file a case request without using the button). I think banner blindness, not understanding what is written in the banners about dispute resolution and also not reading the banner because you want the case request filed quickly contribute to people not understanding what should be listed at ARC. I'm not sure of anything else we could add, unless we make the file a case request button impossible to click until they read something. But then this could just be skipped through anyway. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we know how that banner works (or doesn't) from mobile? I don't know if that's how either of these reports came in but also might be part of the issue - they don't even have a chance to be banner blind. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the banner does fully show up on the IOS version of the mobile app.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

One suggestion I had in the discussion at User_talk:Serial_Number_54129#re_ARC is that a edit filter could be used to warn non-autoconfirmed editors before the file a case request. I'm not sure whether edit filter warnings are shown on mobile, but this is another step to file a case request for those who are likely to not understand either what a case request is or why their dispute is probably premature. A edit filter system message can then be used as another banner, which they may still ignore. Perhaps said filter could be set to disallow, but I'm not sure on that being the best way foward for the time being. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've just realized that ARC is semi-protected anyway *facepalm*. I've created a filter (Special:AbuseFilter/1153) which logs users who file case requests but are not extended confirmed. This is just logging for the time being, but can be changed to warn to provide a reminder to non-extended confirmed users who may have missed the banners. The extended confirmed check could be changed to number of edits and account age to reduce the number of users this would affect. I would not want to see the edit filter being used to disallow with such a high bar. Perhaps slightly over the requirements for semi protection could be used instead if disallow is wanted. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it so that it now logs users who file case requests who have less than 150 edits or have had an account for less than 15 days. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. Also, why has the current request languished for 2 days since its filing to wait for enough official votes for a decline when it was obviously invalid from the start?Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I poked the mailing list about this, we just need one more decline. It's worth noting that it was Memorial Day in the US yesterday, topping off a three-day weekend for many. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That was fast, now at seven declines. It'll be removed tomorrow. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

One of my edits in the Russian Wikipedia I am still proud of was this one. It seems to work. The rough translation of the relevant part is "Do not file an arbitration case unless you have tried all other means to resolve the issue".--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the edit filter to now warn if the filing editor has less than 1000 edits or has had an account for less than 60 days. I'll probably change this based on what case requests are caught by the filter. From my test on my sandbox, when using the mobile editing interface (not the app) it shows me the warning banner. I presume that on mobile apps it will at least prevent immediate saving of the case request until the save button is pressed again. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

NVP Dispute

Initiated by 2600:1005:B128:FE1:BC94:E75D:9158:9BDD (talk) at 04:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties

2600:1005:B128:FE1:BC94:E75D:9158:9BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Yankees10]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Multiple edit attempts have been made to try and correct this issue but each time they have been removed by the same users.

Statement by 2600:1005:B128:FE1:BC94:E75D:9158:9BDD

The individual in question claims that a consensus has been reach by the community which is not true. In the talk page the vote was 4-3 in favor of including the award. Not only that but Ytoyoda argued that it should be excluded because it will be forgotten in a few weeks but months later multiple users have tried to add the award. The community wants the award on the page and the original voting was in favor of the award but it is a select two or three users omitting it because of a personal bias. It is also worth noting that since the original discussion multiple users have submitted an edit request for the award, each time being a different user, but it is the same users denying it. Yankees10 was correct in identifying that there was a consensus, but incorrect in identifying what the consensus was. The award is not recency bias, it does not violate the rules, and the community clearly wants it bar a few individuals who continue to remove it.

If this was filed in the wrong place I apologize, I tried to submit the request on the reuqest page but it does not appear on the pending cases tab.

Statement by Yankees10

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

NVP Dispute: Clerk notes

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

NVP Dispute: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

2600:1005:B128:FE1:BC94:E75D:9158:9BDD (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Casting aside the fact that this type of edit request template was probably not intended to be used in this fashion, it seems that you haven't attempted any dispute resolution with the editor in question. All I see is a small edit war on Mitchell Trubisky. Perhaps it's because your IP has changed and it's hard to track your edits, but I see no attempt to talk to the user in question or to get the community's feedback on the disagreement at hand. As urged by the request template, please read the Wikipedia page on dispute resolution before attempting to raise any more requests here. Living Concrete (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I was searching for polyol ester (oils) on Google and the Germany(de.) entries are much more substantial/informative than the US(en.) one

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyolester

versus

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyolester

Why is there a disconnect/difference between where I'm accessing the site from? Maybe I'm ignorant to what/how Wikipedia projects information, objectively, no matter the country I access the site from, or language I use, the information should be the same. If I buy a uniform, branded, encyclopedia I would expect the same information in any language or country for me to consider them credible. These need to match no matter where I access or search these things from. 174.215.149.201 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

IP I'm not sure why you want to edit the case requests page to make this comment. This issue isn't what the Arbitration Committee would decide. Regarding your question, it is important to note that the "en" or "de" infront of the URL is not where you are accessing the site from, but instead is the specific language of the Wikipedia you are viewing. Each language of Wikipedia has it's own community of volunteers who write the article in their language and the articles are not automatically translated. As such it is very common that an article in one language has less or more content than another language. If you want to fix this, then you can edit the article to expand it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae (July 2021)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Praxidicae (talk · contribs) notified by clerk

Information about amendment request

After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on Praxidicae (talk · contribs) anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.

Revocation of the interaction ban in its entirety. Or, second choice, change sanction to "Ritchie333 and Praxidicae are indefinitely prohibited from replying to each other in discussions"

Statement by Ritchie333

In August 2019, I was subject to an indefinite interaction ban with the user “Praxidicae”. The announcement of the ban is here. Since then I was blocked twice on 9 August and 19 October 2019. I did not appeal the first block as I was taking an extended leave of absence when it was placed. I appealed the second block successfully; the appeal is here.

During this period, I was having issues with off-wiki events unrelated to Wikipedia (which Arbcom have been informed of), which caused me to lash out at people. I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again. Administrators should be held to a high level of civility and accountability, and the best way I can illustrate that is to lead by example. I do not foresee incidents like these happening again. I make no comments on the views of others in the above threads, and would invite you to read them and judge for yourself.

The principal reason for reviewing the ban is I would like to be able to cite these events as an example in the ongoing discussions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct. In particular, it would be a useful example to highlight how administrators can and should be sanctioned, and how harassment-based sanctions must be placed carefully otherwise they may reduce the community’s trust in how they are handled. As a secondary reason, it would be helpful to delete articles this user tags as {{db-copyvio}}, which I can't see being problematic.

As a secondary choice, and an alternative to vacating the ban, I have proposed an alternative to tighten the restriction to just replies in discussions. However, even if the ban is revoked entirely, I do not intend to directly interact or converse with the other user, and that will continue to be the case.

It has been drawn to my attention that a further reason for vacating the ban would be it would allow Praxidicae to have a reasonable run at Request for Adminship. I have no opinion on this, and should it occur, I will recuse from the RfA and not comment on it; in a similar manner, I recused from !voting at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2.

I have reviewed this appeal with Arbcom, who support posting it here. For obvious reasons, I have not notified the other party directly (does this violate an interaction ban?) and would be helpful if a clerk or other editor could do this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: The reason I want to talk about the issue at UCOC discussions is because every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true. Admins can be sanctioned, and at times they should be sanctioned. In my case, it caused me to take a long hard look at what I was doing to myself and whether I had a sustainable career on Wikipedia. While admins shouldn't go around blocking other admins gung-ho, sometimes just doing it to send the signal "hey, admins are not above the law and held to higher standards - cut that out" gives the community a general feeling they'll be heard. I've never born grudges; the example that comes to mind is I'm still on good terms with the admin who issued the second block, PMC, and while we've not talked much since, it's all been civil and polite from my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vermont: I understand what you're saying, but my feeling is - why take the risk? It only takes one admin to say "no I don't like that" and block. cf: Floq's comment "Right now, he can't talk about it at all, even if he 100% admits fault". I get the feeling there seem to be a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the site (cf. WP:FRAMGATE) and it's a shame they can't just come directly to me (on or off wiki) and air their concerns, as I am reasonable. The specific driver for this is is in the WMF's Christel Steinberger's proposal for a UCOC drafting committee, which included the following : "There would also be Wikimedians who have falsely been accused of harassment" and I think that's a fair description of what's happened to me (eg: Pawkingthree's evidence). I can see the rationale behind a short block for someone for being in a bad mood and personally attacking someone, or for doing something stupid, but I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else. I'm happy to talk more about my concerns in a less public area if you're amenable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: The appeal is as originally stated. The reply above is a bit more of a detailed explanation of why I might be incredibly motivated to work with the WMF and ensure the UCOC works for as many editors are possible, taking in a wide variety of views and experiences. I hope it's kind of obvious that "a bunch of people are out to get me" is a non-starter for an actual appeal. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@BDD: To give you an example, the comment that led to the block on 9 August 2019 was made because I was frustrated hardly any comments around the sanctions addressed the underlying issues, which are basically assume good faith and please don't bite the newbies, and doing this to female editors writing articles about women also impacts systemic bias. Beeblebrox wrote a great comment the other day which conveys my views precisely. "We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing. The whole premise is flawed. Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing, they are not all deviously plotting to destroy Wikipedia by laying low for a couple years, only to spring their trap when the time is right." I would have been less likely to lash out, personally attack people in frustration, and then take a lengthy leave of absence, if we had been discussing these issues. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

For another example of how the interaction ban harmed the encyclopedia, in my view, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330#Brewers in Nottinghamshire, where I was unable to properly assist SandrinaHatman and change her viewpoint : "It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I'm going to make one more comment and then shush as I feel I've said enough on this matter now .... the disagreement (from my end) wasn't CSDs. After all, I recently spoke highly of DGG, despite having disagreed on quite a few CSDs, and I've also disagreed with Kudpung on similar issues from time to time, and I certainly don't have any issues in getting on with him. If you want to discuss further I'd prefer to do it quietly via email, rather than filling this board up with a wall of text. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Praxidicae

I can’t make a meaningful statement as I have a lot going on in real life that takes precedence and I do not have access to a computer for the foreseeable future. I do however oppose any loosening of this restriction or any changes given the multiple violations and I’m confused by the rfa statement as this iban doesn’t preclude me from running, though I have no desire to ever rfa on English Wikipedia so it’s a non starter. I don’t have the mental bandwidth to say or deal with this beyond this brief statement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea - I don't believe Ritchie has ever really understood how seriously troubling his behaviour was in relation to Praxidicae and as a result, I'm not entirely convinced they're genuinely well placed to avoid repeating such behaviour - though of course a repetition of such behaviour this time around might result in more stricter sanction, an outcome both justifiable and regrettable in equal measure. That being the case, I generally support retaining the IBAN as previously imposed.

I also find myself being incredibly puzzled by the mention of RfA - if Ritchie doesn't intend to take part in any RfA concerning Praxidicae, why would they need the interaction ban removed, what would they intend to say that is prevented by an interaction ban but which isn't involvement in the RfA itself ? I know Ritchie has tried to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper at RfA, so I'm particularly curious as to why he thinks he needs the IBAN lifted in relation to any Praxidicae RfA.

-- Nick (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by valereee

Nick, I am shocked that anyone could interpret Ritchie's work at RfA as him trying to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper there. That is an ugly accusation, and if anything the opposite is true. Ritchie has tried to keep an eye out for likely candidates and has made open invitations for interested editors to contact him so he can help them through the process. We need more people doing what Ritchie does at RfA, not fewer.

And re: why mention a potential Prax RfA at all -- because the iban could be held against Prax there. Lifting the ban lifts it from both of them, which means Prax would have one fewer potential issue to address during an RfA. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nigel Ish

Nick, I read Ritchie's statement as saying that they didn't want the interaction ban being a barrier to Praxidicae running for admin rather than some sort of gatekeeper role. Whether that would work is a different matter, however, as memories are long at RfA. Ritchie raises an interesting point in that they want to use their case to inform discussions about the proposed UCOC, where it may be relevant. Does Praxidicae (talk · contribs) (or anyone else involved in the case) have a problem with discussing it in the context of the UCOC? If not, could it be possible to lift the interaction ban just for this purpose?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Seems a sensible request. To address Nicks "analyses": Ritchie's no more a gatekeeper than most other RfA regs – he's not one of the most effective opposers. As per Valeree, Ritchie's more of a door opener at RfA – he likes to find people to nominate & support their ticket, as do several other admins. In a small way, requesting this iban lift helps open the RfA door for Praxidicae, should she be interested in that. Ritchie's well liked, perhaps especially by the dozen or so RfA regs that have met him in person (he rolled 16 on Charisma). While Ritchie now views his past interactions with Prax as a mistake, from other perspectives they were far from "seriously troubling". They could be seen as reasonable pro newbie balancing of Prax's quite high quality control standards. Some may see the (sort of) 1-way iBan as an injustice and be less likely to oppose if it's lifted. (To be clear we're probably only talking about 1-4 opposes here, and none would be likely to explicitly say they were opposing due to the Ritchie iban. Or maybe some are seeing it as a 2 way ban & hence a sanction against Prax, & again a lift could possibly avoid 1-2 potential RfA opposers) Other than the reasons Ritchies gave, lifting the iban could avoid situations like the 2nd block which was technically correctly but judged by the community as unnecessary. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I like and respect both Ritchie and Prax, and found Ritchie's behavior at the time puzzling and disappointing. I believe him when he says the circumstances that led to that have changed.

If I understand right, there are three main reasons to reduce/remove:

Ritchie wants to be able to use this as an example of how admins can and should be sanctioned, in an ongoing discussion about the UCC. Right now, he can't talk about it at all, even if he 100% admits fault
Ritchie wants to be able to delete CSD noms made by Prax
Someone else has pointed out to Ritchie that the very existence of Prax's iban with him might harm any future Prax RFA; particularly if Prax was prevented from explaining the circumstances. I don't think this amounts to Ritchie trying to gatekeep RFA.

My lingering concerns are threefold:

If Ritchie wants to be able to bring this up as an example in a discussion, that's a bad idea unless he takes 100% responsibility for the problems. If he makes any criticism whatsoever of Prax, no matter how gentle or how forgiving or how magnanimous he thinks he's being, then that's just picking at scabs, and definitely something to not do.
The CSD-related problem with Ritchie and Prax was, I believe, due to Ritchie aggressively disagreeing with Prax's CSD noms. While I'm sure Ritchie regrets how he handled that disagreement, I'm fairly sure they still really disagree with each other about it. I therefore don't really find Ritchie's second reason convincing.
Due to past bad blood, I'm concerned that if Ritchie and Prax start talking to each other, there's a chance it will slowly disintegrate into a negative feedback loop.

In general, depending on how Prax responds, I think the ArbCom should be open to the idea of removing or relaxing the iban, but maybe with an unofficial agreement (not written down somewhere as an Official Sanction) between two good faith editors:

Ritchie should agree not to bring up this iban as a discussion point, unless he makes zero comments criticizing Prax
Ritchie should not decline any of Prax's CSD noms (they should be free to accept them)
Both editors should be asked to for the most part stay away from each other, and if they do interact occasionally, they should bend over backwards to be kind

Maybe that's too complicated, I don't know. If this does pass, I hope it does some good for both editors to note that someone (me) who's judgement I think is thought well of by both parties, believes that the other editor is generally a good egg, and that they can be trusted to abide by something informally agree to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Vermont

Speaking as a Meta-Wiki administrator and someone involved in UCoC development, the vast majority of UCoC discussions and consultations occur on Meta-Wiki, with the exception of a handful of local language consultations, such as this. I am not sure about the English Wikipedia's policy as it relates to Arbitration Committee sanctions and their applicability to actions on other Wikimedia projects; generally, if the IBAN applies solely to the English Wikipedia, it would not significantly hinder Ritchie's ability to participate in UCOC discussions in the capacity that they described. Regards, Vermont (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

I don't feel that the outcome of the amendment request should be determined by a desire to use this situation as an example in code of conduct discussions. Other editors can bring it up.

I disagree with setting conditions that limit what can be said in code of conduct discussions. If the commenter cannot speak candidly, it's harder to weigh the significance of the example of admin sanctions being raised. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

No comment on the request itself, and it predates my time, but every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true I suspect that may have been my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vami IV claiming that admins don't get blocked unilaterally by another admin, and as a counter-example I was given a link to Ritchie being blocked by an arb enforcing this IBAN.

So yes, I suppose an admin was technically blocked for something (albeit I'm not sure arbitration enforcement of an ArbCom remedy counts). One needn't look further than Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Ritchie333_and_Praxidicae to see exactly what the cost was of sanctioning an admin. That is, 37,923 words (253,158 characters) of hot air. Given this, it's debatable whether this is a good example to prove "admins aren't above the law". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

The problem with relaxing the ban to only include replying to each other in discussions, is that both editors are active in speedy deletions, with Praxidicae looking to rid Wikipedia of spam and COI and Ritchie coming from the opposite end of wanting to rescue articles. The October 2019 block of Ritchie came about when he deleted the copyvio and rebooted an article that Praxidicae had tagged for deletion. Whether that counted as "undoing each other's edits" as described in WP:IBAN was much debated at User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_103. In that discussion Premeditated Chaos said one of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them and AmandaNP said, it seems like Ritchie is stalking Praxidicae's contributions with the amount of time between edits and frequency of this occurring. This is directly prohibited in our harassment policy and is why the IBan was enforced here. Ritchie has denied doing this, but I think it would be wise for him to continue to avoid removing, addressing or otherwise involving himself at all with any of Praxidicae's CSD tags if the ban is loosened.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jackattack1597

@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm just chiming in here to note that, looking at the discussion, most of the comments after Ritchie's Iban was imposed seemed to mainly be due to heightened tensions after the Fram case, and people dissatisfied with a decision based on private evidence, not just because of an admin being sanctioned. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Another comment: Isn't this an appeal of a 2-way interaction ban, and not of a one-way ban? I've seen a couple of people refer to this as a one-way Iban appeal, but isn't the interaction ban 2-way?Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Question from SN54129

@Ritchie333: on account of respecting you, etc., I wasn't going to comment, but your latest update is begging, I think, for some clarification. You see—and I may well have completely misread—your original reasons for wanting the one-way IBAN vacated were that it would allow you to talk about it on meta, delete copyvios and support Praxicicae's RfA on en.wp. However, according to your latest statement, the one-way IBAN should be removed because a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the site and that it's up to them they can't air their concerns, as I am reasonable. Further, are you now saying that you "have falsely been accused of harassment" (since you say that's a fair description of what's happened to me... I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else.

So have the grounds of appeal shifted this being something for which you apologised for in your opening statement (indeed, profusely) to something which should never have happened and was completely unfair to you. These are two very different things. In the first case, there is an acceptance of culpability but a promise the same behaviour won't happen again; in the second, there's pushback against the original premise and a concomitant implication of your own blamelessness. ——Serial 11:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence from Andrew Davidson

Statement irrelevant to the merits of the amendment request (clerk action). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've not had much to do with this matter but happen to notice a fresh example which indicates that the root cause issue here is overzealous tagging by Praxidicae. The topic in question is Mrs Hinch – a famous cleaner, influencer and successful author. The recent timeline is:

Article moved from draft to mainspace
Praxidicae moves article back to draft space
Article moved back to mainspace after further cleanup, which continued
Praxidicae tags the article as G11 (spam)
The G11 is declined by Pawnkingthree as "not purely promotional"
The article is sent to AfD by another editor
The outcome seemed clear and the discussion was acrimonious so I snow closed it as Keep

The editors who tried to delete this seemed quite out of step with the general consensus and so it is they that should pull their horns in. The use of G11 seemed quite excessive and such tagging will naturally generate some pushback. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement By Celestina007

Andrew Davidson, In as much as I have respect for you and your dedication to the collaborative project I am nonplus that you mention Praxi in the same sentence where the word “Over zealous” is used, she sets a higher bar, but overzealous? I don’t believe this and furthermore I believe that is rude & considering to them and their body of work. Per your example above, if Praxi moved the article to Draftspace & the editor unilaterally moves it back to mainspace without a dialogue of any sort, that is wrong, The editor should have submitted it via AFC instead of move-war. As for Your second point, if the article is promotional in nature then pray tell why shouldn’t it be G11 tagged? Thirdly, an admin declining a G11 request is immaterial. Lastly when an article has been moved to draft and the same editor moves back to mainspace that is move warring like I earlier stated and sending the article to AFD is usually the best course of action. Celestina007 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

@BDD: FWIW I can think of two cases from the past year wherein an editor was blocked for violating an IBAN for asking about the IBAN (specifically for seeking to turn a one-way into a two-way). Both were overturned by the community on appeal, but a subsequent effort (by me) to codify that into policy did not gain consensus. Also, I started an RFC that would have allowed RFA candidates to discuss an IBAN during an RFA (to answer questions about it), and that didn't gain consensus, either. Finally, there was a recent appeal of an 18-month-old IBAN that had not been violated, and the appeal did not gain consensus because one party didn't agree to it. A subsequent village pump thread to put an expiration date on IBANs (not by me) was snow opposed. I assume links aren't necessary, but my point is: there is definitely enforcement of IBANs that is overzealous in my view but that appears to be supported by the community nevertheless (so I think Ritchie's risk of getting into trouble just for discussing the IBAN is non-trivial), and it appears the community doesn't want one-way IBANs lifted without the agreement of both parties (and Prax doesn't agree here). I don't know if the IBAN here should be lifted or not (I don't know the details of this case) but I think the concerns all around are reasonable. IBANs are a tricky problem in my view, and my sense is that the community takes them very seriously and enforces them very strictly. Levivich 16:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Given the history of how the ban has been enforced I can fully understand why Ritchie is concerned about mentioning the ban at all in the UCOC discussions. Given that experienced editors in good standing have here expressed different views about whether it would or would not be a violation then this request seems all the more sensible. The adage that it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission very much does not hold true for Wikipedia editors with active sanctions.

I have my own issues regarding Prax (entirely off-topic here) and I know Ritchie from meetups (back when such things wouldn't kill us) so I'm not going to comment on the merits or otherwise or removing the ban. If it is not removed or loosened then it seems to me that Ritchie's primary desire could be facilitated by a clarification/amendment explicitly stating that they may comment about the IBAN and their experiences of it and its enforcement in discussions about dispute resolution processes, experiences, etc. as long as any references to Prax are avoided where possible and kept to the absolute minimum where it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Clerk notes

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

Notified Praxidicae per request above. My understanding is that leaving a required formal notice when appealing, such as {{Arbitration CA notice}}, is allowable as it is part of the appeal process. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Arbitrator views and discussion

I am recused on this matter. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as an initial thought: Richie's reasoning seems largely with wanting to be able to talk about the iban in UCoC discussions. To me that is simply not a compelling reason to even consider lifting it, and in the case of two-way ibans it is substantially more compelling if both users desire the ban being lifted. I have not totally made my mind up here but my first impression is to say no. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: The topic under discussion here is whether the interaction ban between these two editors should be retained. Please limit your remarks to that topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I also do not see this as banning Richie from discussing the very existence of the ban. That can be done in UCoC discussions without mentioning or criticizing Prax. She has also stated she has no intention to run at RFA, ever, so that point is moot. That leaves only the CSD nominations. If it were still the bad old days where CSD noms regularly experienced massive backlogs I think I might see it differently, but times have changed for the better in that regard and I just don't one admins ability to reply to one other users nominations and substantially harming the project. And as I mentioned above, in the case of a two-way iban, it makes a rather large difference if the other party wants the ban lifted, and that's not the case here. I just don't see this going forward at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ritche's response to Vermont set off alarm bells for me, notwithstanding the self-awareness in the response to SN54129. An IBAN is not a secret prohibition which can not itself be discussed. I can think of many ways to refer to this experience in UCOC discussion without running afoul of the terms of the ban. "I've seen editors assert administrators don't get sanctioned, but I am an administrator and am under an interaction ban after a disagreement rooted in wiki-philosophy got out of hand. The ban feels unnecessary and unfair to me, but I comply with it." Basically, I statements. You've pointed to NOTTHEM, which is largely the same idea. If an admin would block over comments like those, that's a problem as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm missing something. Is this about fear of over-zealous blocking admins, or a perceived need to speak in detail about Praxidicae in order to contribute to UCOC discussions? --BDD (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not inclined at this point to support any changes to the status quo. A lot of the statement points to some sort of a gentlemen's agreement to leave each other alone, but such an agreement would really need the consent of both parties, which does not currently exist. Maxim_(talk) 16:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts align with Maxim's on this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't find a convincing reason in the statements above to lift the sanction. As BDD notes, the sanction can be discussed without violating the interaction ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
This particular interaction ban has been a little bugbear of mine since it was enacted, because the whole way it was enacted didn't seem right. It happened off-wiki, based on on-wiki evidence, we imposed an interaction ban, but did not hold a full case. Most importantly, I did not see a clear route of appeal. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to engage with both parties to find a workable outcome. Now, since we have a clear route of appeal - here, ARCA, on wiki - I feel far more happy about actually moving forward in a pragmatic manner.
Looking at Ritchie's reasons for appealing, I agree with the other Arbitrators. There is little of substance that would require an appeal. Ritchie333. you may discuss the topic ban, and your feelings around it, which should be sufficient for the UCoC discussions. You may not discuss Praxidicae, her behaviours, or her actions. I am sorry that you feel that the encyclopedia is being harmed by your inability to work in certain areas, but unfortunately, that is a direct consequence of the history.
It is clear that Praxidicae does not want this interaction ban removed, and since two-way interaction bans are sometimes needed - some individuals just don't get along - I'd need to see a very very good reason to lift over the objections of one party. Worm^TT(talk) 19:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Do any fellow arbs or Ritchie333 think that a motion or amendment like that described by Thryduulf would help? It sounds like we're in agreement that the IBAN shouldn't be construed as some sort of gag order that can't itself be mentioned in discussions. In that sense, the motion or amendment wouldn't actually change anything. Personally, I agree that repealing this sanction isn't on the table until both parties have some willingness for that to happen, just as I agree that Ritchie's possible inability to discuss the experience from his perspective is not to the benefit of the project (nor to any individual's benefit). --BDD (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd support something like that to explicitly cover the situation that Ritchie can discuss the ban itself, but also to explicitly say that he may not discuss Praxidicae in such statements. However, I doubt I'm talented enough to create such a motion! Worm^TT(talk) 19:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
My feeling is that we have already clarified that this is not a gag order and he can discuss the ban itself, so a motion that doesn't change anything probably isn't necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The root of the ban was CSDs, which Prax and Ritchie seem to have fundamentally different views on, and they were unable to resolve their differences. Seeing as Prax wishes the ban kept, it does not appear that the parties will be magically getting along anytime soon. This reflects my view that sometimes it is okay that admins have sanctions against them if it solves a problem.
Now, I understand that there is a desire to discuss the ban in the context of UCOC, and I am more than fine with that. I think it silly that, as BDD puts it, we have this informal "gag rule" around bans. Mentioning that one has a ban and diving into the consequences of it are hardly disrupting the encyclopedia. I don't know if we need a formal motion, I think it may be enough that we note such discussion is fine, and that should Ritchie or Prax get blocked for that, we would almost certainly overturn it. Though if someone wants to write something up I'd certainly consider it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ritchie333:, I agree that it goes deeper than just CSD's, but seeing as Prax does not wish it lifted, I think the point is somewhat moot anyway. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Ritchie333 and Praxidicae

In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Support

As proposer. I think having a gag rule around IBans isn't really necessary. One can talk about the fact that they have a ban without talking about the other person. I think Ritchie is a useful case study in how admins may have sanctions on them, and he seems to have some desire to put that perspective to use. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Worm^TT(talk) 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Beebs that this was obvious to me, but it's clearly not treated as such, and thus worth explicitly stating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Given we're here....yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I am also affirming my position that this should be a default assumption for interaction bans. —BDD (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

I think we're in agreement that this was already the case and this motion doesn't change anything. I therefore consider the matter to have already been clarified sufficiently without this motion, but I don't feel it so strongly that I'll oppose it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
– bradv🍁 16:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above 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.

Amendment request: Unicornblood2018 (September 2021)

Original discussion

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 Unicornblood2018 at 06:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Unicornblood2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

N/A

Information about amendment request

Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

State the desired modification

Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

State the desired modification

Statement by Unicornblood2018

I was unblocked with the condition that I am topic-banned from any pages or edits related to (1) China, or (2) new religious movements, broadly construed. And that my topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed. I don't understand why I am actually banned from those two topics in the first place. The one and only topic that I had alot of problems with was Falun Gong. Just like Ben Hurley, our dislike on falun gong has nothing to do with China (politics or people) or even religions. It was purely and solely based on how dangerous the teaching really are. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058

Falun Gong was the only topic that I felt personally conflicted towards and just wasn't able to accept certain editors hiding real info. The edits I had worked so hard to add to Falun Gong article. Was predominately about including their belief that aliens walk the earth, that practitioners were told to have total faith in Li and reject modern medicine if they hope to get better from serious illnesses. And that their (still alive) leader outright claimed to have legit supernatural powers like telekenesis but refuses to demonstrate. Such info is not even false. However I apologise for the trouble I have caused others back then and I have no interest or intentions on editing falun gong anymore. There are plenty of other topics outside Falun Gong that deserve my attention. I really had good intentions to add in real info that others were unwilling to allow the pubic to even be aware about but I wasted too much time on FG.

I wanted to edit china high speed rail earlier today but then realised I actually cannot. And it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to also topic ban me on all religion and china related topics as if implying somehow I had numerous issue with those topics. I don’t. If you want to put a permanent topic block on me for Falun Gong. I am cool with that albeit still not postive on it. But I feel that the editor who put such a wide topic block on me for new religions and china related, did not really take the time to look at the context. I don't go to Tai chi or spiritual Tantra pages and edit mishieviously. I also never had a single dispute or edit war on any china related topic outside of falun gong on wikipedia. The only page that I had lots of disputes over was one topic. (Falun Gong) and even then, I don't think I should be banned from editing falun gong because none of my proposed edits were of bad faith but factual and well sourced.

Why am I today allowed to edit American economic politics, japanese trains, nazis etc but not allowed on Religion and china topics? I think having such a wide topic ban is oddly disportionate since the only topic I have ever had actual conflicts in were on Falun Gong and only that topic alone. P.S - it's honestly confusing for me to actually fill out this request. I am certain that I would most likely and unintentionally done it incorrectedly. Sorry about that in advance if that is the case.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Unicornblood2018: Clerk notes

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

Clerk note: I've renamed the ARCA request to "Unicornblood2018" as requested. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Unicornblood2018: Arbitrator views and discussion

Only 5 article-space edits since the unblock and related in April 2019. The point of a topic ban is to remove an editor from a problematic area in order to let them demonstrate that they can collaborate effectively on the project, hopefully allowing them to eventually return to that area at some point in the future. The first part of this has not been done, so the second part should not either. I will agree, though, that "China" as a whole is too broad of a topic, and I would be okay (unless convinced otherwise by my esteemed colleagues) with narrowing the restriction to Chinese politics and and religion, broadly construed. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
~~Struck per WTT; clearly the previous committee could have done that and didn't. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)~~
Un-struck, but I will say that I am okay with either option (keeping it as-is or dropping to only religion/politics). Primefac (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Topic bans should not be removed simply by waiting them out. You were unblocked in January 2020, but the first edit you made was 3 days ago, over a year and a half later, specifically to request removal of the topic ban. So, my answer is no - and what's more, I'd be voting against any reduction, I'm not going to put my opinion in front of the committee that made the past decision when nothing has changed besides the passage of time. Worm^TT(talk) 13:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with what Worm said all around. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: I am sympathetic to the concept that when we restrict someone from American Politics we don't restrict them from American railroads (as an example) and so taking the country of China off the table might be too broad. What do you suggest is an appropriate scope given this user's past? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps Falun Gong, or if that is too narrow, Chinese religion and politics? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
In this appeal, I see reiteration of the behavior that caused the topic ban, and a lack of understanding of its purpose. I also agree this is not the time to lift the topic ban. If you want to succeed with this in the future, demonstrate positive editing in the many areas where you are allowed to edit. Make it plain to the next committee that reviews this that you're a net positive to the project, that removal of the topic ban will benefit and not harm the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Being allowed an appeal does not mean the appeal will automatically be granted. As my colleagues rightly point out, the Committee cannot in good conscience repeal a topic ban without any evidence to support the assumption that the ban is no longer necessary. Even if it were not an attempt at gaming the system, it can't work for all those reasons mentioned. Regards So Why 18:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
No, per Worm. Clerks, could someone rename this (e.g. "Unicornblood2018")? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I would be willing to reasonably narrow the topic-ban, despite the very legitimate thoughts above. "Banned from editing about anything relating to China" is presumptively an overbroad restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Topic-ban amendment

Unicornblood2018 is topic-banned from any pages or edits related to 1) Chinese politics and religion, or (2) new religious movements, both broadly construed. This replaces their topic ban from January 10, 2020.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

As proposer Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
~~Seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)~~ (move to abstain)
Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

The current topic ban is broader than I would've come up with, but I don't mean to second-guess last year's committee. The appellant has barely edited at all since it was placed; if there were a pattern of positive edits to weigh against, I would probably feel differently. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Given all the past disruption from this editor, the unblock last year was extremely generous of ArbCom, and I see no compelling reason to revisit it at this point. I would prefer to see a strong history of collaborative editing in completely unrelated topics before we loosen any restrictions. – bradv^🍁 20:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
per my colleagues and my comments above. Worm^TT(talk) 22:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Per Worm and Brad. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Per my comment above. There is no data to allow us to make any informed decision if the editor has simply waited for the appeal period to expire without any other edits. Regards So Why 19:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I would rather see some sustained editing in other topics, even as little as 6 months, before considering changing the topic ban. Maxim_(talk) 14:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Hasn't shown even the slightest inclination to prove that the sanction isn't justified. Katie^talk 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I would have been inclined to grant if the user had made practically any effort to show they were a valuable contributor. They have done nothing though and simply expect us to shrink their topic ban without evidence they will play nice. Edit for six months and ask again. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

In re-reading my original comments I realized that I did in fact say I was fine with either option, so I am moving down here so as to not conflate the support votes. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above 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.

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers (November 2021)

Original discussion

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.

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted Maxim_(talk) 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Support

Primefac (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
So Why 09:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
~~Normally done on the Arb-Wiki as it's an internal motion, but~~ I have no concerns here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is standard procedure in advance of the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Maxim_(talk) 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Katie^talk 12:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
– bradv^🍁 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Arbitrator discussion

Community discussion

The discussion above 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.

Clarification request: Renaming, Deadnaming, Blocks, UCoC & policy (December 2021)

Original discussion

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 Cabayi at 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: m:Special:Permalink/22396512#Phil Sandifer

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Cabayi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
TheresNoTime (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
1997kB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
El Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Special:Diff/1058095090 [diff of notification Primefac]
Special:Diff/1058095189 [diff of notification BDD]
Special:Diff/1058095234 [diff of notification TheresNoTime]
Special:Diff/1058095163 [diff of notification 1997kB]
Special:Diff/1058095448 [diff of notification El Sandifer]

Statement by Cabayi

Clarification is requested about the policy implications of Arbcom intervention at El Sandifer's rename request.

El Sandifer has been banned since 2013 and has since transitioned. El requested a rename on the global queue.

Global rename policy requires that

The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.

I have long read that equating blocked account with bad conduct, and a rename with obfuscating the user's talk page activity which led to the block, and thus, blocked accounts are not renamed. I have not been challenged on that interpretation until this request.

El challenged the decision at the renamers' mailbox, accusing me of an "outrageously transphobic decision." I reiterated the policy.

El then took the request to meta, and apparently to the arbcom's mailbox. Following private discussions, Primefac & BDD intervened on behalf of Arbcom stating that the block should not prevent the renaming. TheresNoTime also intervened in their capacity as a functionary. 1997kB acted on the rename as requested.

Setting aside El Sandifer's WP:NPA-level response that my original decision was transphobic, and letting their blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping slide...

What until yesterday/today was a clear policy has now been muddied.

I don't believe the renaming serves El well, as there are now >8000 signed talk page edits tying new name (attribution in the edit history) to deadname (signature in the post). I don't believe there is a need or even a legitimate purpose to rename a user who hasn't been active in 8 years. I don't believe the intervention has left the renaming policy with a clear direction.

Please explain the intervention's effect on the interaction between:

Global renaming policy concerning the renaming of blocked users (my primary concern)
WP:UCOC
Deadnaming
WP:PACT

Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac for clarifying. As I noted above and in my notification to El, my principal concern is where this leaves renaming policy rather than El's renaming specifcally. Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No, David Gerard I am explicitly not denying anyone the right to be called what they want. I am requesting clarification of the situation. Perhaps global renaming policy needs to change. The current situation is unclear. Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Worm That Turned. That is all the nuance which got lost between the Arbcom's private discussions and the intervention on the meta request. I'm happy for any clerk to close now that some clarity has been achieved. Cabayi (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Primefac

At this exact point in time, I have only one thing to clarify:

El then took the request to meta, and apparently to the arbcom's mailbox

While this is an understandable assumption, it was actually not El that contacted us regarding the rename. Given that's likely more than I should be saying anyway, I will leave it at that. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BDD

I don't have anything to add beyond what my colleagues have already covered. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TheresNoTime

I disagree with Cabayi's assertion that there are any "policy implications [arising from] Arbcom['s] intervention at El Sandifer's rename request.". It makes sense that the arbitration committee would clarify their position at this rename request.

Given that my role as a functionary has next to no 'weight' when compared to a statement from said committee, my comment was little more than superficial support for something which I can empathise with on a personal level.

I believe Cabayi's actions in filing this case, and how they handled the rename request, have been entirely with good intent (if somewhat ill advised).

I would urge the committee to reject this case and consider a simple addition somewhere that ArbCom is happy to be consulted in future global rename requests --TNT (talk • she/they) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 1997kB

Statement by El Sandifer

Statement by David Gerard

This request itself appears to be a direct violation of m:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#2.1_–_Mutual_respect part three example three - People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns; by directly stated intent: the requestor appears to be asking Arbcom for the right to violate the UCoC. As such, this request should be rejected immediately - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, I've seen the followup email you sent, in the name of WMF. Your intent is absolutely unambiguous. If that isn't a UCoC violation as well, then the UCoC is worthless - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux

In regards to @Worm That Turned: (probably rhetorical statement that I cherry-picked below): Do renames now need to consult Arbcom before declining the renaming of a block user?. I've certainly been around a while and am a global renamer as well, and can attest that globally the "local block" consideration isn't always a brightline rule; and would support a rename without unblock after a consult with the blocking admin on a project the requester had any significant contributions to where they are currently blocked. In this specific case, the block is labeled as a committee ban - so I would expect that the local committee should be consulted. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

Clarify. Is this a 'blocked editor' asking for a page move of his/her/they, etc's bio article title? GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So this doesn't fall under WP:Proxying. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Morwen

I am genuinely staggered by the tone of the email that User:Cabayi sent to El notifying her of this arbcom request. May I have permission to repost it here? Morwen (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Renaming, Deadnaming, Blocks, UCoC & policy: Clerk notes

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

Renaming, Deadnaming, Blocks, UCoC & policy: Arbitrator views and discussion

I fail to see how this is a potential request for clarification and/or amendment. The cited policies are not ArbCom decisions. While a ban is indeed bad conduct, the global policy does not say "you cannot be renamed if banned or blocked", it says you cannot be renamed if you behaved badly and you want to be renamed in order to conceal that you did so. In this case, the rename request has legitimate alternative reasons and as pointed out, there is no risk of concealment or obfuscation since their old name is clearly connected to the new one. As long as the user is active on a different project and wishes to contribute there under their new name, the nature of SUL requires the rename is carried out on all projects. All ArbCom did was to confirm that as far as the ban in question, the Committee does not believe that the rename request was made in order to "conceal or obfuscate bad conduct" or will lead to that. Regards So Why 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The global policies are useful for the general case, and therefore appropriate for the vast majority of situations. However, in this case, we felt that our arbcom ban should not preclude a rename. We have had accepted similar requests in the past, and declined others - depending on the credibility of the reasons behind the request. In this case, El Sandifer used her real name as her username, and therefore it was reasonable for her to want to move away from her deadname - the benefit that the community gains from stopping is far less than than the benefit that El would receive, and so it was right that it should be allowed. I say this without consideration of the global policies, and simply because it is the right thing to do. Worm^TT(talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Noting further, that now that I've checked the global renaming policy - the name change keeps the user's surname and in so doing appears to be trying to make the absolute minimum amount of change to meet her requirements (removal of her deadname), whilst staying within the "not seeking to conceal or obfuscate". This is one of those rare cases where we are talking about a real name, not a pseudonym, and we should be sympathetic to that. I don't believe that we need to change the global policy, but we need to acknowledge that sometimes we need to look at wider context. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
For clarification purposes, I will say the following. The commmittee was contacted by a third party about the rename, with the understanding that the rename could not happen due to the Arbcom block. After a short period of discussion, we believed that the Arbcom block should not stand in the way of the rename. The global policy states "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct." - not that they cannot be renamed if blocked, or not in good standing. So, between these factors, and the fact that the rename target is very similar to the original target - the policy requirement is met.

The Committee cannot set global policy, thank goodness, nor would we want to. Cases where this is relevant are minimal (where their username is a real name, and blocked, and have a good reason for rename)

Should Deadnaming be an exception to the global policy? Well, maybe, in cases where the user's real name is their username - I'd certainly expect some consideration to the reason behind the rename request and would recommend a global discussion the topic. Do renames now need to consult Arbcom before declining the renaming of a block user? Certainly not. Do Arbcom want to adjust the renaming policy? No, I don't believe that's necessary. Is this a one-off decision, without precedent? Well, if the same situation came up, I'd hope more consideration would be given to the reason and I believe that Arbcom would behave in the same way.

I believe that covers all angles I can think of. Worm^TT(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
No action is needed on this clarification request, which should not have been filed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Further discussion of this request, which I reiterate should not have been filed, is unlikely to be productive. It should be closed and archived as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Worm That Turned in the entirety and with Newyorkbrad that no action is needed on this request. Because the filer has withdrawn this request, as soon as a majority of arbs have concurred, clerks should feel free to close this request. On a procedural note, no arbitrators should be listed as a party to this request – Primefac and BDD were merely implementing the full Committee's decision and are not parties or administratively WP:INVOLVED. I'm therefore removing them as parties. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Also agree this should be closed with no action. Katie^talk 19:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing more for us to do here. We were asked if we had any objection to a global rename of a user who was banned 8 years ago by ArbCom, and we responded. It is clear from the request that this name change was being requested for real-life reasons, and not to obfuscate or hide anything to do with this wiki. It's also worth mentioning to the global renamers/stewards that we appreciate being asked, as there are instances where a global rename of a banned or blocked editor could cause problems. But in this case it's a non-issue, and this ARCA can be archived by the next available clerk. – bradv^🍁 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Pile-on agreement with the above comments. No action needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Word Limits in Case Requests?

Do the listed word limits for case requests have a purpose other than to provide a disadvantage to editors who are already trying to be concise? It appears again that word limits merely divide editors into a class of those who pay attention to word limits and those who do not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this request has only been open for a day, it sometimes takes a bit for the gears to get rolling and for us to actually run the numbers on who is over and who is not. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely over. I keep trimming, but people keep asking me things. It's a complex case, can I have 250 extra words please? I've been using Wordcounter.net, trying to stay under. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The clerks are aware and thanks for your reminder. We are dealing with word counts at that case request now. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Concentration camps in Poland

Totally lost on who's on what side of what. Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay - Did you actually expect that the case requests would be understandable? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request: all past cases regarding ethnic feuds (December 2021)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 14:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: all past cases regarding ethnic feuds

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

stipulating discretionary sanctions

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

stipulating discretionary sanctions

on the spot, by any admin

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Nationalist editors, who only defend one side of the story should be indeffed or topic banned on the spot. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Oh jeez. The number of times over the years, I've come across nationalism being pushed (successfully sometimes) in areas of the project. What's being asked for in this ARCA, has the potential to open up a barrel of worms. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

As tempting as it is, this is not practical. WP:DE is already policy and WP:TEND already exists and if arbitrators had a magic wand that would make enforcing those easy and straightforward without collateral damage, they would have waved it already. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

all past cases regarding ethnic feuds: Clerk notes

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

This goes without saying, but all past cases regarding ethnic feuds is not a valid case name. I have therefore removed the {{RFARlinks}} template to avoid confusion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

all past cases regarding ethnic feuds: Arbitrator views and discussion

I am going to ask the dumb question here, but is it not the case that all past cases involving ethnic (and/or political) disputes have within them the ability to topic-ban individuals following the appropriate warning (specifically, Discretionary Sanctions)? For what is this amendment request actually asking? Primefac (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
(obviously) decline per the others below, though I do think a broadaxe would be a good look along with the fez and cardigan. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
yeah, this is extremely thin and I am not real interested in an idea that would make a mass change to a broad category of prior arbcom cases. I can't see anything coming out of this as it is currently framed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
One man's nationalist is another's patriot. I think we would have a hard time administering this standard. There are a lot of edge cases and grey areas. We already ban disruptive nationalists as is. No evidence has been presented at all, so it's hard to see that this is a problem at all. Is there perhaps a more specific dispute that you would like us to look at? As a practical matter, we generally avoid broad proscriptions, opting instead for tailored solutions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline. Firmly. Discretionary sanctions in an area that has history of controversy (including, but not limited to areas where nationalism is present), is one thing. A blanket ability of any admin to block any editor simply by declaring them a nationalist? I am absolutely unwilling to have anything to do with that sort of authoritarianism. Let's gloss over the fact that it could be misused so easily, and consider some forms of nationalism that we all see in the western world - American patriotism, Brexit, anti-colonial nationalism, civic nationalism, sporting nationalism? Would you ban an editor for having an opinion of one of those areas, even if there is no controversy in the area? I can ramble about this further, but I think my point sits at "what CaptainEek said, but louder". Worm^TT(talk) 09:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline. What WTT said. ArbCom sanctions should be a scalpel, not a broadaxe. Regards So Why 11:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Decline --BDD (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Concurring with the others, thanks for the suggestion, but no action needed. The clerks can close this thread at their convenience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Per NYB. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

full protection of ARC?

I get that the specific case is suspended and no edits may be made, but did the committee mean to suspend the ability to file all potential cases? Because right now no new case request, unrelated to the current one, may be filed by a non-admin. nableezy - 22:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In the event that unrelated case requests need to be filed, please email the clerk team at clerks-l

lists.wikimedia.org. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

What Kevin said. We all realize this is unusual, this has been a highly unusual case request from the get go and this is aimed at restoring some sort of semblance of order. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Sub-section correction required

Howdy. In Supplemental motions, the sub-section MyMoloboaccount block, should be changed from a 1.1.43.4 subsection to a 1.1.43.4.1 subsection. As it's about the same editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Same with Jehochman (alt) & Volunteer Marek (alt). Which should be changed to 1.1.43.1.1 & 1.1.43.5.1, respectively. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. While it is true that the motions are about the same person (people?), they are still two separate motions, and as such should remain their own subsection. But I'm not an Arb clerk so what do I know? SkyWarrior 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

As SkyWarrior says, these are separate motions which are separable or even mutually exclusive. Izno (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: What is going on right now is the standard -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Extra white-spacing & underlines at end of requests

Noting the most resent (ARCA) case. I've noticed a tendency to create 'un-needed' white space & un-needed underlining at the end of the case requests. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a real problem, unless you've got info on how it's bad for accessibility or something. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's distracting. I'd fix it up, but I'm not a clerk. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It was a part of a template which was being substituted. I have now corrected the whitespace and horizonal line for you in the main templates, so they will no longer appear. Have a wonderful new year! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's still there, the extra white space & horizontal line. Let it never be claimed, I was never nit-picky. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction (January 2022)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by BilledMammal at 04:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff of notification for ProcrastinatingReader, though as they are only quoted this may not have been required

Statement by BilledMammal

I ask that ArbCom clarify whether ECR applies to discussions on RSN regarding sources that are related to the topic area, broadly construed. If it does, I ask ArbCom to also clarify related to the topic area, broadly construed in this context, and whether non-ECP editors are allowed to comment regarding the reliability of the source for uses outside of topics covered by ECR.

This clarification request was prompted by two discussions at RSN, Jewish Chronicle and CounterPunch. Both had considerable involvement from socks and non-ECP editors, and during a close review of the former where the question of ECR was raised the closer stated I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.

Apologies Beeblebrox; I wasn't clear in my request. I am requesting clarification about when the restriction applies to discussions at RSN, not how it is applied. Specifically, discussions about the general reliability of a source, typically RFC's for listing at RSP, rather than narrower discussions about the use of a source in a specific article. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To try and clarify further, I would broadly define this request as "Can discussions regarding project-wide topics, such as those to determine the reliability of a source for inclusion at RSP, be sufficiently related to the topic area, broadly construed for ECR to apply?" If the response to this is "yes", the follow up clarification requests to this would be "How is "sufficiently" determined?" and, given the need to not disenfranchise users from participating in discussions, "How do we handle the participation of non-ECP editors in such discussions?". BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis I don't believe there is anything unusual about those two RFC's that would result in broader than usual input. I also believe you are right about a large number of non-ECP editors being unusual; I took a look at a recent RFC with decent participation, RfC: The Daily Wire, and was unable to identify any !votes from non-ECP editors, though it is possible that I overlooked them. I also took a look at a recent RFC with !votes from multiple socks, RfC: The Canary, and found that of the unbanned !voters, four were non-ECP at the time of the RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox and BDD; based your comments about how it currently functions, I believe there will be a number of RFC's at RSN that will need to be reclosed, including but not limited to The Canary and CounterPunch. However, while I understand the difficulty in providing a precise definition, I would ask that you comment on two ambiguous examples so that we have a baseline to refer to. Specifically, would ECR apply to an RFC on CNN (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, but discussions about its reliability do not tend to involve ECR topics) and an RFC on Al Jazeera (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, and discussions about its reliability do tend to involve ECR topics). I would assume that it doesn't apply to the former and that it does apply to the latter, but I would appreciate formal clarification on this, particularly if I am incorrect.

Finally, I would note without raising a question that this would appear to mean that ECR also applies to RM's that have an impact both inside and outside ECR areas, such as this one (ECR not applied at the time, two blocked socks, one unblocked IP). BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

As regards Arbpia related matters, I am almost sure that the intention has been to disallow unqualified editors from participating in formal discussions, see this ARCA, the usual procedure being to strike any comments made. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: The case is not about those three RFCs specifically but the more general question of whether participation is permitted at noticeboards if the matter under discussion is related to matters where ecp applies (not just Arbpia). As several have said, "broadly construed" would be a case by case issue decided at the time of/before/after a discussion so I don't think there is any retrospective declaration here.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Part 5B(1) of the ARBPIA General Sanctions says

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. (my emphasis)

Since RSN is a noticeboard, non-ec editors are not allowed to engage in ARBPIA-related discussion there. Zero^talk 13:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, OR, the number of socks and non-ec editors taking part in those discussions was exceptional even by ARBPIA standards. It is reasonable to ask why but I have no evidence to offer. Zero^talk 13:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you write that e-c restrictions are "not to disenfranchise users from participating in discussions", but the part of the ARBPIA General Sanctions that I put in bold are intended to keep non-ec editors out of formal discussions. They are necessary because otherwise RfCs, RMs, etc, are overrun by IPs and SPAs. It can't be controlled by anti-disruption methods, because it isn't obviously disruptive. (Imagine if 10 IPs show up and all !vote the same way. Can an uninvolved admin decide to remove them all? On what grounds?) They can still participate in informal talk-page discussion. These rules are a blessing for the smooth running of the ARBPIA area and I really really hope you don't consider changing them. Zero^talk 13:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

The only question in my opinion does Counterpunch RFC is ARBPIA discussion. I personally not 100% sure many outlets print about I/P conflict it doesn't meant that the general reliability discussion about them is I/P related Shrike (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader (ECR)

I was notified but I'm not sure exactly what the question is here. If the issue is my statement during review of the Jewish Chronicle RfC (I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.), my issue was not whether ECR can apply to RSN discussions in the abstract (I understand that it can), the issue is whether it applies to the RfC in question. Rarely do RfCs say "is X source reliable for articles in Y topic area". The Jewish Chronicle one was marked asking with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam, although the consensus I found was for the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians. Some editors commented on the reliability more generally, and not just limited to these areas. So are non-EC editors prohibited from commenting here? If so, who makes that call? I don't know if it's appropriate for a non-admin closer to unilaterally decide whether an administrative ruling applies in order to disenfranchise certain editors in these circumstances. I will note that there was severe sockpuppet disruption in that RfC (6 sockpuppets), but all were above EC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by OID

To respond to Kevin's comment specifically. The issue (in light of the Daily Mail RFC) is that many of the 'Is X source reliable' discussions now do not follow the instructions at the top of RSN - that a source has to be evaluated in context as to the article its being used on and what information is being referenced. The Daily Mail RFC was clear cut in that when you do this with the modern mail, it almost always fails the reliability tests, and when it doesnt overtly do so, you cant trust it anyway due to its documented history of making things up. The intent was to shorten the time spent *constantly* having to review a source that you knew was 9 times out of 10 be crap because someone had used it and been reverted. And when it wasnt, you had a host of better sources available anyway.

Functionally now what happens is you have broad general reliability discussions about sources, which dont look at the individual uses, but in actuality are specifically being used in a narrow topic area (most commonly right-wing/conservative sources for American Politics or Israel/Palestine) to push a certain viewpoint. The goal of the discussion is to blanket allow/disallow a source based on ideological point of view rather than an objective "is this source reliable for the information to be included in the article". Why this is problematic from an RSN point of view, is that ECP-prohibited editors from the IP area can easily skew a discussion on sourcing when it is a general review rather than a close look at what the sources are being used for, because you can argue the broad review of a newspaper isnt covered by broadly construed, but you cant do so when the topic is specifically about IP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by BobFromBrockley

I participated in the CounterPunch, Canary and Jewish Chronicle RfCs. If I understand the discussion here correctly, the argument is that because these discussions fall within the ARBPIA area, only extended confirmed editors should participate. My strong view is that these three RfCs extended far beyond the ARBPIA area. In relation to CounterPunch, the discussion was sparked by the use of a CounterPunch article (which was written by a non-expert and included several factual errors) as a source for facts about international law in the article Alex Saab, which has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine/Israel. While some of the currently contentious uses of it broadly relate to Palestine/Israel (e.g. Sara Roy, Alan Dershowitz) most of its uses on Wikipedia are totally unrelated, and the examples used to argue for unreliability/deprecation in the RfC related to vaccinations, 9/11, Xinjiang, the Holodomor, Holocaust denial, etc. Similarly, in The Canary discussion (there were actually several discussions in a row, all with overwhelming consensus against reliability), examples of unreliable reporting raised related to the NHS, Syria, RussiaGate, harassment of journalists in Nicaragua and many other issues. The Jewish Chronicle discussion was framed as "Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam", none of which are Israel/Palestine. The examples of unreliability raised related to the British Labour Party and not to the Middle East. In conclusion, I see no reason to retrospectively declare these discussions under the ARBPIA category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

Beyond the problem with explaining how brand new accounts or ones that mysteriously only show up to vote on occasion find a discussion on RSN, the fact that it is I/P users heavily socking in these discussions should inform one as to why these should be covered. In the discussions Bob brings up, Icewhiz (5 IW socks in CP, 4 in the JC discussion) and NoCal100 (1 sock each) socks formed a huge chunk of the votes in favor of deprecation for CP ( or maintaining reliability for the Jewish Chronicle. Why might that be? Beyond the obvious seeking to impact a restricted topic area. And in these discussions, where a handful of users can have a huge impact, see for example the 15 users in good standing, including the non-EC users who should be discounted, being used to expunge a source across the encyclopedia, we need to have some level of protection against disruption. nableezy - 17:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

I think point C of the motion addresses this: "C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." It isn't possible to protect one section of a page, and applying ECP to a busy noticeboard is not desirable. but admins are free to use other means to curb disruption as needed. More broadly, ECP is generally intended to stop disruption in articles, not to disenfranchise users from participating in discussions. That's what all those other options are for, disruption to discussions can and should be dealt with on a more case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've taken another look here, I am not at all sure why I did not participate in the discussion of that motion or vote on it, but it does appear to say that non-EC users can be excluded from such discussions. I do not agree with that and would've voted against it had I been aware it did this, but I missed it and that is, as of right now, the rule in areas where the committee has imposed ECP. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I know this doesn't quite answer the question, but commenting at RSN and making judgments about the Wikipedia-idiosyncratic definition of "reliability" are pretty insidery things to be doing. The occasional legit non-ECP editor could certainly end up there and give useful input, but a lot of non-ECP people in the same discussion at the same time seems unusual. Am I wrong about that? Other than the topic, is there anything about those two discussions that would have attracted broader than usual input? Since this hasn't come up before AFAIK, I'm not sure if this is a general issue, or if these two threads are outliers in some way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone who responded to my question - good to know this isn't the usual state of things. I think the first part of the question has been adequately covered; as for the second, I don't know that we can provide much general insight beyond what WTT and Kevin say below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes to the basic question (as in this diff). I don't think we can answer the follow-up question, any more than we can precisely say what "broadly construed" means. I agree with Zero0000 that the quoted sanction does serve to disenfranchise non-EC editors, and that is indeed the point. Not a very nice way of putting it, I suppose, but it's true. --BDD (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, yes, I think that's a reasonable assumption, given that Al Jazeera's entry at WP:RSP mentions potential Arab–Israeli conflict bias, with no such caveat for CNN. Context will matter, though. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Responding to "Can discussions regarding project-wide topics, such as those to determine the reliability of a source for inclusion at RSP, be sufficiently related to the topic area, broadly construed for ECR to apply?", yes - As OR states, this is an "insider" area, where you would expect people to be EC before finding it and being able to participate helpfully. I cannot prescriptively give a definition of "broadly construed" beyond "if it is related broadly in the opinion of a reasonable uninvolved individual". Worm^TT(talk) 16:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with OR and WTT both in terms of how we are attempting to mitigate disruption (which most definitely continues) and how to interpret broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The first question is easy to answer: If an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", to the topic area, then the ECR applies. The harder question is what counts as "related, broadly construed". It is of course a case-by-case decision, but I would suggest the following general rule: an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic). Again, this should be determined case-by-case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Concur with OR, WTT, & L235. I figure the sensible interpretation is straightforwardly implied by the existing wording, so in my opinion it wouldn't need to be changed. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above 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 apologize for the distribution

I buckled under the pressure and I did previously receive some attacks in my personal life(I will leave it at that). I am willing to return and edit subject to restrictions imposed by Arbcom. I will not cast aspersions without any evidence. I have not edited anything else, and If Arbcom believes I should remain to be blocked, so be it. --Molobo3 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Molobo3, ArbCom is aware of this and will discuss it internally before deciding how to proceed. As you are currently blocked under your main account, please do not edit other than in this thread. – bradv^🍁 22:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Molobo3 - Are you sure you are well enough to return? I'm very concerned about your health. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to return, I'm just questioning those sudden swings. Please forgive me if this is too personal. I’ll not say anything else other than I wish you all the best. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to contact the powers that be, via email or however else it's done. Rather then evade your block, with a sock? GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6