Opabinia regalis (talk | contribs) |
BilledMammal (talk | contribs) →Statement by BilledMammal: Clarify further |
||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
This clarification request was prompted by two discussions at RSN, [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Jewish Chronicle|Jewish Chronicle]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 355#RfC: CounterPunch|CounterPunch]]. Both had considerable involvement from socks and non-ECP editors, and during a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361#Jewish Chronicle|close review]] of the former where the question of ECR was raised the closer stated {{tq|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.}} |
This clarification request was prompted by two discussions at RSN, [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Jewish Chronicle|Jewish Chronicle]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 355#RfC: CounterPunch|CounterPunch]]. Both had considerable involvement from socks and non-ECP editors, and during a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 361#Jewish Chronicle|close review]] of the former where the question of ECR was raised the closer stated {{tq|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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk: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 {{tq|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?". [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {other-editor} === |
=== Statement by {other-editor} === |
Revision as of 05:26, 3 January 2022
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Motion: Crouch, Swale
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2022 (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
- Replace 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without AFC.
Statement by Crouch, Swale
Please replace the 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without needing to go through AFC. This will reduce the number of articles I can create a year from 52 to 12 but will mean I can create them directly however we should also consider allowing me to create a specified number of civil parishes for the parishes project, there are 407 left as well as allowing appeal every 6 months. There are also a number of other suggestions I have made here. Several editors at the last appeal said they would be happy with allowing 1 article a week with no AFC but I don't think we need to allow 1 article a week on anything, it should probably only be 1 article a month but as noted a specified number of civil parishes for the project could be specified such as 1 article a month on anything and 1 parish 1 week etc so as noted it could just be 1 article every 3 months or 1 article every 6 months as long as the AFC requirement is removed. As noted before I have had very few articles declined at AFC. Please specify which options and what creation limits you accept even if its only 1 article a year, example, 1 article a month, 1 parish a week, appeal after 6 months.
- @Izno: In the previous request several arbitrators said they would be happy with removing the need to go to AFC by allowing me to create 1 article a week, in this appeal I'm suggesting as the 1st option to reduce 1 article a week to 1 article a month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno: That back in 2010 my article creations were generally poorly sourced and often contained little meaningful content while now I have produced much better articles such as population data, coordinates and history, see Shoreswood and Greenstead Green and Halstead Rural for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I haven't had any articles that I've created through AFC deleted (or redirected) at all not just this year. In several of those like South Wheatley, Nottinghamshire, Uig, Duirinish and Sunds they were created in mainspace from my draft by other users and then history merged, in the case of Clarborough and Welham, North and South Wheatley and Vildbjerg they were moved into mainspace by others. With regards to the abandoned drafts yes they get deleted under G13 but might get improved or moved by others and note that I don't have any restrictions on page creation in other namespaces per the 2019 amendment, the only restriction is the amount I submit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: Because my last few previous appeals have failed so this time I'm making the 1st option low to reduce the chance of it completely failing. AFC is for new users and its a bit babyish for me as an experienced editor. While I agree it may have been helpful when I first joined Wikipedia in 2009 (though I was so clueless I probably would never have had any accepted) now I have shown I can create good articles. Since the community seem still concerned about me creating NN articles which are poorly sourced 1 a month would be an OK starting point and a different throttle limit for parishes (so that we can try to get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible) since while they are agreed to be notable by most people are still concerned about the quality of the articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by DGG
There remains NPP, and anything odd is likely to be noticed there, as many of the same people work both. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Chess
As a somewhat experienced AfC reviewer I'll chime in to respond to Beeblebrox. AfC is extremely cluttered. The backlog is currently at 2516 pending submissions, with the oldest submissions requiring review being 2-3 months old. This is actually relatively good, as the backlog can sometimes reach to 5 months worth of articles. It's not unusual for editors to have to wait for months to get a review at AfC. This makes it an unbearable process for a lot of people, since by the time an article actually gets reviewed many people don't care anymore. Arbs should also consider the impact on AfC from these restrictions. If the restrictions are necessary to prevent disruption (I am unfamiliar with this user), so be it, but AfC submissions do require volunteer time & effort to review above that of WP:NPP. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
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 of restrictions, similarly to the last one you reference directly, does not appear to discuss the reasons why the restrictions exist nor why they should not exist today (or why they should be reduced). Can you clearly articulate why you think they do and why you think they should not? --Izno (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale Let me repeat:
Can you clearly articulate why you think [your restrictions exist]?
As for the second question, I am not interested in what you think the "several" arbitrators said last time. Let me try asking the question a different way to see if that helps you understand what my second question was asking:What behavior can you show or what promises can you give that the behavior which earned you the restrictions in the first place will not be repeated?
Izno (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale Let me repeat:
- I agree with Izno and feel there remains the mismatch I identified last year between the editor's good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia and community forbearance of those efforts. See also WP:WILDFLOWERS. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am somewhat torn on this request. On the one hand there are the issues mentioned above and in previous appeals. On the other hand, sanctions are meant to keep an editor within the acceptable bounds of how an editor is expected to behave. Looking at their talk page, as well as their page creation stats, it would appear they have successfully created a large number of pages that were eventually accepted; by my count only two declined drafts this last year. As a side note, there are 59 drafts created in 2020 that were abandoned, which is a wild departure from the apparent norms, but they are old enough I do not think they mean as much as they would have a year ago.If this sanction gets lightened (either one-per-week or one-per-month with no AFC), what is the tangible outcome of that? We have one less check on someone who has so far been ~95% successful in creating acceptable drafts – even if they are stubs – with no articles subsequently deleted in the last year. To me the latter aspect is the relevant bit; having drafts accepted only to be deleted would indicate a lack of keeping with community norms, but to have zero deleted afterward indicates that AfC might not strictly be necessary in this case.So yes, I see a bit of a outlier from what would be considered "good" on Barkeep49's "excitement scale" (see last year's appeal), but at the same time I do not see a significant impact to simply dropping the AfC requirement. I will have to mull this over whilst awaiting other comments, but at the moment I am leaning slightly towards accepting some version of this request. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of an odd request and I'm not at all sure I understand the point, why would only being able to submit an article once a month or even once every three months be preferable to being able to submit on a week through AFC? What is it about AFC that is so unbearable a burden? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it can't be said that you're not persistent. You have a link above to "the parishes project", but the link goes to a page in your userspace, not a wikiproject. You also say you want to
get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible
. Is there community consensus that these topics are all notable enough for standalone articles? If so, then I don't see much harm in the proposed changes; if someone's had consistent success through AfC we can reasonably say they're likely to continue. But it also seems like this change won't get to your stated goals any faster, so I'm not quite sure I get it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Amendment request: American politics 2
Initiated by Atsme at 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff of notification for Awilley.
- Information about amendment request
- Topic ban from Antifascism US imposed at Talk:Atsme, first on July 22, 2019, amended on July 24, 2019 at Talk:Atsme.
- Repeal requested
Statement by Atsme
The date of Awilley's first topic ban action is July 22 2019 but he modified it July 24, 2019 to cover US only, perhaps because I called an RfC at the only article that is clearly subject of this t-ban, and where I also received an apology for the behavior that resulted in my stated concerns over how I was being treated. As Awilley has said in the past to other editors who reacted defensively to aggressive editors, we need to grow thicker skin. A few of the diffs he included involved my attempt to fix the header template at Talk:Fascism because it conflicts with consensus from an RFC, and contradicts the resulting lead of the article, but that topic is not part of my t-ban. He also used diffs for my limited participation in an AfD involving a BLP which may or may not be associated with the topic of my t-ban. I have had very limited participation in that topic area as evidenced in this discussion. Please forgive me, but "backroom deals" don't sit well with me, so I chose to bring my appeal here. It is now January 1, 2022 and the topic ban has been in place approximately 2-1/2 years for a topic area where I have spent very little time over the past decade as an editor. In fact, an iota of time would be an gargantuan overstatement in comparison to my total edits. I would very much like to start the New Year with a clean slate, and hope ArbCom will agree that it has been long enough.
- Response to starship.paint - this diff was my response to the apology I received, and I'm hoping that my response to that apology will also serve as a demonstrative answer to your question about recommitting. I have always taken and will continue to take my commitments seriously. Atsme 💬 📧 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kevin, I didn't intend to make time-served the primary reason for my appeal. If you are concerned about my behavior in that particular topic area after examining the diffs - can you please be more specific and
at leastprovide a diff or two so I can at least see & understand what has raised your concerns to the point that you're hesitant to remove a t-ban that has been in place for 2-1/2 years? Without specifics, I'm at a loss. I was under the impression that blocks and t-bans are to be used to stop disruption, not punish editors. So please forgive me for not quite understanding what purpose you see this t-ban is serving to stop disruption at this point in time. Atsme 💬 📧 02:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Awilley
Statement by starship.paint
@Atsme: will you recommit to your 2019 position? [1] if I ever find myself participating in the AP2 topic area again I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind, will answer questions if asked and will maintain my customary polite demeaner at all times. If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas. I have also read the essays WP:WORLDSEND, WP:DGAF, and WP:LETITGO and have taken them to heart.
starship.paint (exalt) 08:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by CaptainEek
Speaking as an editor and not an Arb, since I have a fairly strong personal opinion on the matter and am the main author on Anti-fascism. As a practical point, this sanction is no longer needed. Its been over two years. Anti-fascism in the US is no longer the spicy hot-button issue it was a few years back. Atsme notes that she is not usually involved in these sort of topics. Even at the time she made a well worded appeal. I understand there is some hesitance to remove a ban because the editor wants a clean slate. But I think we should be more aware of the impacts of sanctions. We may have high ideals about turning the other cheek and being magnanimous, but our editors are still just people. Having inapplicable or unjust sanctions applying to them years later decreases editor morale and editor retention. Lift Atsme's ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
American politics 2: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Clerk note: I have reformatted this request to match the expected format of an ARCA. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to hear the answer to starship.paint's query, but at the moment I am leaning towards accepting the appeal. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Hi - are you appealing on the merits or because the sanction is no longer necessary? Parts of your appeal suggest the former and others suggest the latter. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Clarification request: Scientology
Initiated by GeneralNotability at 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Not applicable.
Statement by GeneralNotability
I ask that ArbCom clarify whether remedy 2 of the Scientology case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is still in effect. As far as I can tell, it is de facto not enforced - this quarry (credit to AntiCompositeNumber for the query) shows that there haven't been rangeblocks mentioning Scientology since 2010, with one individual IP block in 2011 (most were applied in 2009 following the case), and most of the blocks should have expired in 2014 since they were set for five-year durations. Further, the IP ranges assigned to the Church of Scientology have changed since the case; the church owns ASNs 7914 and 25823 (credit to wizzito for identifying the relevant ASNs) and none of the ranges owned by those ASNs are currently blocked. Blocking these IPs to enforce the remedy is trivial, but I believe ArbCom should consider whether this remedy is still necessary to prevent disruption. Given that the bans expired years ago but we have not seen significant disruption, I'm inclined to say that it is not (and that our normal community processes, like COIN, should be enough to contain disruption if it should resume in the future), but I've got no problem with applying the blocks if the Committee believes they are necessary. I just don't like being in this in-between state of "remedy is on the books but is not being enforced".
Statement by Wizzito
Actually, looking at the query linked, the last 2 IPs blocked for Scientology reasons were 216.60.18.40 (registered to the Bank of Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma; blocked 1 month in November 2018) and 138.130.234.8 (registered to Telstra Internet in Sydney, Australia; blocked 24 hours June 2018). 92.37.9.164 (registered to A1 in Ljubljana, Slovenia) was the last block mentioning this ArbCom decision. Neither of these are registered to Scientology. wizzito | say hello! 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here's other active-looking Scientology IPs I missed:
- 66.134.120.117, registered to Moxon & Kobrin, blocked 3 times, only made 1 edit in 2005.
- 207.90.4.0/24, registered to the Flag Service Organization, no edits since 2010.
- 209.33.168.184/29, registered to Scientology in Dallas, never edited.
- 64.206.134.192/29, registered to Scientology in New York, never edited.
- 24.96.32.80/28, registered to Scientology in Clearwater, FL, never edited.
- 69.212.91.200/29, registered to Scientology in Plano, TX, never edited.
- 69.104.202.208/29, Scientology in San Francisco, never edited.
- 67.127.237.40/29, also in San Fran, never edited.
- 67.125.78.232/29, also in San Fran, never edited.
- 64.109.41.152/29, in Plano, never edited.
- 63.199.209.128/29, also in San Fran, hasn't edited since 2009.
- 70.90.200.8/29, in Albuquerque, never edited.
- 208.16.163.192/26, in LA, never edited. wizzito | say hello! 22:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- And it goes on and on...
- 198.95.10.0/24, registered to "sys000.scientology.org", never edited
- 198.77.154.0/23, last edit in 2019, last Scientology edit in 2016
- 12.9.238.0/23, Scientology in San Jacinto, CA, no edits since 2009
There are a bit more than this, but overall, my point is that this rule is outdated and these IPs barely edit or don't at all (at least anonymously, I'd 100 percent support a checkuser for some of these ranges) wizzito | say hello! 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Izno I feel as if that would be useless, though, my point here is that these IPs are barely active, haven't been reblocked, and some are reassigned by now. wizzito | say hello! 22:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- If active disruption ever happens from any Scientology IP in the future, we can just block those as necessary and maybe per 5.1. wizzito | say hello! 22:55, 2 January 2022 (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.
Scientology: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Recuse, obviously. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Absent evidence of disruption within the last year or two, I would be fine repealing remedy 2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- This one has been in the back of my head notes as a likely candidate for removal as I believe the community processes are in place to take care of problematic edits. There is also remedy 5.1 should it be needed (or perhaps that one could also be on the chopping block). I might also consider reframing the motion in terms of a ban on editing from the church rather than specifically targeting the IP addresses (which will and obviously have shifted as presented). --Izno (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am also open to rescinding the remedy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am certainly open to this and Scientology DS had been one of the DS that I have suggested be rescinded in the (hopefully soon to be revived but for now stalled) DS reform. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to hold off for more input before voting, but from what I see here I'm inclined to agree that this can go. 2009 was a very different landscape than what we have now, I think COIN and other community measures can probably handle any brushfires that may pop up in this subject area. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction
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)
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.
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)