Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Requests for arbitration
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Eastern Europe
Initiated by Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Mhawk10
The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?
Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of WP:EEWP:ARBEE?
Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is an inquiry for a broader understanding, with the giving alerts, talk pages notices, etc. in mind. I was a bit surprised when I didn't see a talk page notice on the Poisoning of Alexei Navalny page even though there is one on the Alexei Navalny page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given the facts at this AN thread, I think that some users (like me) would benefit from knowing whether the topic of Crimean Tatars within the Soviet Union (for example) is within the scope of
WP:EEWP:ARBEE. I don't think it's entirely abstract at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Given the facts at this AN thread, I think that some users (like me) would benefit from knowing whether the topic of Crimean Tatars within the Soviet Union (for example) is within the scope of
Statement by GizzyCatBella
How about the Soviet satellite state of East Germany? Additional illustration - Greece and the European part of Turkey. This might be confusing to the young (born in 2000 +) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
If my memory serves me correctly? The countries in Europe that were under Soviet influence or control, were described as "Eastern European countries", as being behind the "Iron Curtain". The East (Communist) vs West (Democracy), etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
Eastern Europe: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Is there an actual issue at the moment where this would clarification would have an impact or is it an inquiry for a broader understanding (such as editors who might need an alert, talk pages where the notice would appear, etc)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also don't see a one size fits all answer here and the AN thread linked as a reason why an answer is needed doesn't strike me as a particularly great place to weigh in either. The best I can offer is that at least some parts of Russian topics will fall with-in the scope of EE. Do all parts? That's what I'm not ready to say today, as maybe yes, maybe no. I would need more input from the community than this ARCA has achieved for me to say. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding of the original disputes that led to this particular discretionary sanctions regime is that the disputes were more along ethnic lines within certain parts of Europe. The various situations presented in the original request for clarification all seem to be edge cases, and would be probably best dealt with on the individual merits of a known conflict or dispute as it arises; the particulars of geographical location would be but one factor in determining whether this discretionary sanctions regime applies. For example, ethnic disputes involving Kazakhstan would probably be lumped under "Central Asia" and not "Eastern Europe (let's ignore for a moment what does and doesn't have a DS regime presently). In contrast, my instinct would be to lump anything Russia-related under Eastern Europe given the likely cultural basis for a dispute. But, I should emphasize again that I don't see a good one-size-fits-all answer here. Maxim(talk) 17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Crimea is in Eastern Europe, so editing conflicts related to that region (and to go along with Maxim's line of reasoning, ethnic-related conflicts in particular) would fall under the Eastern Europe DS regime. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is this a generational/cultural thing requiring memories pre-dating the fall of the wall (1989)? Eastern Europe is the former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking this over but the response here suggests that a clarification by motion (instead of a routine archiving of this ARCA) would be appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4
The commenting arbs were satisfied with the ECP restriction being tied to the userright. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Xaosflux at 16:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by XaosfluxIn 2021 the related Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion was passed, and replacing the specific restrictions on users with selection of the Extendedconfirmed user group as requirement. We have had some recent discussion at WP:PERM if this includes any user that any administrator also decides to add to that user group, even if they do not meet the normal requirements, and even if for the explicit purpose of bypassing this remedy. There are sometimes non-remedy reasons to give someone EC early (not related to WP:LEGITSOCKs which I don't think anyone is confused about), when I give someone EC early for some non-remedy reason I normally warn them to purposefully avoid articles under this remedy until they would naturally qualify. So in summary, may admins allow any editor to bypass this remedy by adding them to this user group? Statement by SelfstudierThe difficulty in the particular case giving rise to this ARCA was compounded by a series of events. A non ecp editor created an AI article for a breaking news event with a clearly POV title and then !voted to support that title in an RM designed to remedy the POV issue. When their non ecp comments in that still open RM were struck as is usual, it transpired that the otherwise still unqualified editor had been granted perms -> kerfuffle. This could possibly have all have been avoided were it possible to auto undo AI article creation by non ecp editors. 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. Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes
Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Johnpacklambert
My topic ban says I am not allowed to participate in deletion discussion or anything like unto it. The whole discussion in imposing it was about articles. I am wondering if it extends to Categories for discussion, especially such discussions that are only speaking about renaming an existing category, and not at all trying to get a category deleted. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- So even asking for clarification of a ban is grounds to consider a siteban on me. That seems extreme. I am trying to go through the proper process and gain better understanding of the matter, and that in and of itself is treated as grounds to support a siteban. This seems harsh. I was trying to get better understanding and go through the proper channels. Treating doing this as grounds to consider even harsher penalties seems very extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The wording below suggests that some think my very asking about this should result in a ban or block. Such negative reactions to legitimate questions, seem uncalled for. I asked this because another editor that I was speaking of suggested that I should ask about this part of the matter. It is clear that I am not the only person who did not realize that "deletion discussions, broadly construed" would extend to all XfD. The tone that "you asked this question, we should now siteban you", makes it feel like the view is I deserve punishment if I do anything to try to get clarify. It is a very frustrating situation to be in. To not have honest inquires treated as honest. It is the key to avoiding things that will be problematic to ask beforehand, yet when asking itself is treated as something deserving punishment, it is a very frustrating point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that topic bans can be arbitrarily expnaded just because I make comments that someone does not like, without them violating any actual rules of behavior in Wikipedia also seems arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I see I may have spoken too broadly in the sports notability discussions. I have revised my comments to address the particular issues they were responding to directly. I am sorry for speaking too broadly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The idea that notability is about deletion is broadly not what it is supposed to be. It is mainly about guiding the underlying creation of articles. I have revised my wording to focus on the guidelines themselves. The ban in no way mentioned sports at all, and to put it in place afterward based on things that were not against any Wikipedia policies or guidelines just seems arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think calling statements of opposition to changing the guidelines for sports notability "battlefield conduct" is not justified. There was an open proposal to change a guideline. I expressed opposition to changing the guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The very fact my asking a question is used to propose a huge increase in the scope of the ban makes me feel like I am being punished for trying to get clarification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I feel that some of the answers I go earlier were conflicting. For one thing, a statement was that if the discussion at hand could lead to deleting an article, I should steer clear of it, but if it could not, I could participate. That suggestion is one reason to try and get more clarity. I see that deletion of things other than articles is intended to be covered, but that was not entirely clear before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is posting notice on my talk page that I found 2 articles that have the exact same subject, just say a name that was spelled in a minor way differently OK. Or is doing that in violation of the Topic ban as well. I figure I might as well clear up any possible grey area to avoid issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Another editor who I trusted suggested that I seek more clarity on this matter. Also, people suggested that the operational question was whether the discussion at hand could result in a deletion. Most CfDs do not have any change of resulting in a deletion. I was at least thinking I could get more clarity. I do not like how I am attacked for seeking clarity. I am an honest, sincere person. I have tried to read and internalize everything that is said. However it was not clear to me if the statement of one person actually represented a consensus view. Maybe I should trust less in other editors, but when they suggest I should at least try to get clarification, I did not realize that seeking clarification would lead to so much negative reaction to my even trying to do it. I am sorry for not fully understanding this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDay
Your bringing this to WP:ARCA, will not result in a block or ban, JPL. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Guerillero
I would like the arbs to consider expanding Johnpacklambert's topic ban to include notability, broadly contrued. Part of the reason that he was topic banned was due to distruption around the notability of atheletes and he is now at WT:Notability (sports) continuing the same sort of behavior. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: It has nothing to do with like or dislike. I have no feelings on the subject. What I am pointing out is that you have decided to double down on the area of dispute that you were partly topic banned from rather than exiting the area entirely. Further, you continue your battlefield conduct in that same topic area area and seem to continue to focus on pushing your beliefs around the deletion of a class of article through the avenues open to you [1]. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
Note that Seraphimblade has closed the Arbitration Enforcement request with the outcome Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban
and blocked JPL accordingly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Fixed the clarification to be in the format of a clarification request. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The remedy bans you from participating in "deletion discussions, broadly construed". Deletion discussions at a minimum include the six usual XfD venues, that is AfD, MfD, CfD, RfD, TfD, and FfD. The "broadly construed" qualifier would arguably cover discussions outside those venues that relate to deleting something. As much has been explained in the arbitration enforcement request, and frankly none of this should be a mystery for someone who's been around since 2006. While I'm not leaning at this moment to proposing such a measure, I do wonder whether it would be easier for everyone involved to have a site ban imposed, as there shouldn't be so much difficulty in understanding what is permitted and what is not permitted under such a sanction. Maxim(talk) 13:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Concur with Maxim, this is fairly clear-cut. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I will note the CfD question was asked and answered during the proposed decision. Johnpacklambert you asked quite a few questions there and I'd encourage you to go back and look at those before filing future ARCAs. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: can you give me a diff of where you got conflicting advice about CfDs? I linked to a direct answer to you which is the one I would have given. Answering questions you have about your topic ban is reasonable but if you're not going to refer to answers you get before asking the same question again, it becomes less reasonable. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert has been blocked but to answer his question
Is posting notice on my talk page that I found 2 articles that have the exact same subject, just say a name that was spelled in a minor way differently OK. Or is doing that in violation of the Topic ban as well.
if the topic ban would prevent him from doing it directly, it's my opinion that trying to get someone else to do it, like by posting on the user talk, is against broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Johnpacklambert has been blocked but to answer his question
- @Johnpacklambert: can you give me a diff of where you got conflicting advice about CfDs? I linked to a direct answer to you which is the one I would have given. Answering questions you have about your topic ban is reasonable but if you're not going to refer to answers you get before asking the same question again, it becomes less reasonable. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Concur with @Barkeep49. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- "deletion discussions, broadly construed" → any method listed under {{Deletion debates}}, and includes proxying. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Motions
Muhammad images
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. |
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Support
- Not used since 2016. Maxim(talk) 12:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
BDD (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Back on the fence, I suppose. I do value the feedback below. It's also possible the DS is having a desired preventive effect, though that's more speculative, and perhaps a slippery slope. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Enterprisey (talk!) 15:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Striking per Firefangledfeathers. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- There have been 2 logged actions about this. Ever. There were also 2 ARCAs about this in 2012. The fact that they are equivalent shows just how unnecessary this has proven. The sanction has been appropriately listed at WP:AC/DS and Template:Ds/alert and yet it's still not been used. All this says to me, per my comment below, that it is not an appropriate use of ArbCom's power under policy. The community can do lots of things that would not be appropriate for ArbCom to do and for me this includes passing GS that are not used. So, if the community thinks it's appropriate for this to exist it would be entirely appropriate for it to pass as GS. Given the lack of usage in general and the complete lack of usage over the past 6 years, I don't think we need to sunset this to give the community time to consider it especially because GS authorizations can happen incredibly quickly when there is consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that based on the feedback below we have 2 editors suggesting it remains necessary, 1 editor clearly saying it isn't, and 2 others supporting a gradual plan to get rid of it. So far arbs that are really considering community feedback I think it important to consider all feedback, not just those saying it needs be kept. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Per Barkeep, but also per the lack of use in the past 6 years specifically. --Izno (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Second choice to the sunset motion. — Wug·a·po·des 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Per community comments. WormTT(talk) 08:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose that since I'm in the minority, I should probably explain my reasoning here. Discretionary sanctions are meant as an "extraordinary" grant of power in an area that needs it. One measure of whether those sanctions are still useful is how many times they are used, and I do believe that we should spot DS areas which are not being used and remove them. However, as much as that is a tangible and numerical value, there are other ways to measure usefulness. If disruption has eased in the area, it could be that the protagonists have moved away, or the controversy has fizzled out but equally, it could be that individuals are respecting the line and simply the threat of more harsh sanctions is enough to hold a controversy at bay.
- Since we're not on the ground and working in the area - we should absolutely listen to the administrators and editors who are - and if they say they still find it useful, I believe we should retain it. I am fully persuaded by the community comments that the controversy about depictions of Muhammad is still fresh in the real world (I mean, come on, Salman Rushdie was stabbed last week) and the crystal clear statement from Doug that he is still finds it useful.
- Now is not the time to remove it. WormTT(talk) 07:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Still useful, even if not used. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I respect Doug Weller's opinions, and Worm That Turned presents a good argument. - Donald Albury 17:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Abstain
Sunset of Muhammed images
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. |
- Support
- Community general sanctions have been enacted in less than a day (COVID) but generally seem to take a week or two to gain consensus. The most recent took about a month, which was the longest of any of the community GS I looked at and so I suggest twice that amount of time is more than sufficient for the community to decide to pass this if they wish. Second choice to the original motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- First choice — Wug·a·po·des 20:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Equal choice. In response to the comments below, I see the use of a DS regime as an exceptional measure. As there have been no logged sanctions in years, I don't believe that the situation now is exceptional enough to warrant DS. As ArbCom retains jurisdictions over previous cases, we should be able to reimpose DS by motion if the need arises. Maxim(talk) 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- First choice, thanks for proposing. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
General discussion by arbitrators
- Am considering @Firefangledfeathers's note. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- The sanctions may not have been used but the topic is still an irritant to many muslims. I've handled emails at info-en on the topic in the last year. I'm unconvinced that the ability of admins to set boundaries for civil discourse on the topic is a tool which should be removed from the toolbox. Still considering the point... Cabayi (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have a hard time saying "this is still useful even if it's not used". Discretionary sanctions are an extraordinary grant of power to admins and hugely limit the community's chosen resolution processes. I can justify that in extraordinary circumstances (the behavioral equivalent of extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence). If the community decides that despite lack of use it would be appropriate to do as community authorized GS, well I have no issues with that, but cannot support subverting and interfering with community chosen processes as an arbcom except as necessary. This is in the discussion section because I have not had time to do a full examination of whether it might be appropriate with this topic. But I wanted to lay the marker out as a general philosophy for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I would support this, but I think there is a viable compromise suggested by Isaac: set a sunset date which allows the community time to take up the regime as General Sanctions. I would propose something like
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded, effective 1 August 2023....
which gives the community a year to figure out what they want to do. — Wug·a·po·des 19:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Community discussion
I urge the arbitrators to reconsider. The 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy is still fresh. That article needed EC protection in June, which was done under ARBIPA. Other related articles have seen Muhammad-related disruption, including Aisha, Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of the Quran. All of those would not be covered by IPA or any other DS topic area. I encourage a review of Talk:Criticism of Islam for insight into the kinds of protracted disputes (sometimes leading to blocks) that have been common in the past few months. Current admin attention, by which I mainly just mean Doug Weller, has been invaluable in keeping discussion reasonably civil.
Unlike some of the recent DS topic areas considered for rescindment, this area does have editors made formally aware. 12 DS alerts have gone out since the case, with four (1, 2, 3, and 4). One was done by me. 25 users have declared awareness of the topic area using the ds/aware template (2 blocked, 1 me).
Admittedly, this is a DS topic area which needs more clerical attention, in that many affected articles and interested editors have not been tagged or alerted. I suppose the strongest counterargument I can imagine is that it appears regular admin action and DS enforcement from other topic areas has been sufficient to fight this ongoing disruption. To me, there's evidence that this DS topic area has been contributing at least a small amount to the fight—enough, I think, to outweigh the burden of one additional topic area in the lengthy list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC) inserted text 16:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: For what is it worth, I was the one who alerted the Arbitrators to this as I noticed it's had barely any sanctions under the provisions of the case for the ten years it's existed, with no logged sanctions for six years, no entry on the DS logging page since 2017, and no entry at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions - a situation very similar to the state I found the TM case's DS in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Jéské Couriano. I agree those are all good reasons to support rescinding the remedy. In general, I support review of the topic areas and removal of ones that aren't needed. When TM DS was rescinded, no alert had been given in the topic area in over two years. No sanction would have even been possible, except against those named in the original case or those who'd already been sanctioned; some ds/aware users might have been sanctionable, but I am no longer able to tell who. I think this case's recent alerts, flare-up in disruption, and topic-adjacent admin action justify some caution here that would not have been warranted in the other recent cases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed; this seems like a situation where the DS was forgotten about and people ended up looking for the closest peg to fit the square hole. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't remove this DS. As one of the editors involved in this area I find it useful. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can a discretionary sanctions regime be useful if no sanctions are given out in years? I find myself at an odd sort of impasse. Had there been no DS regime in place already, would we be talking about imposing one? But, given that one already exists, perhaps it's better to leave if there are (a) some formal awareness notices given out, and (b) some use of DS that could have fallen under the scope of this regime, but went under a different one. At this point, I find myself ever so slightly leaning towards rescinding but that vote is not yet set in stone whatsoever. Maxim(talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think part of it is that the regime isn't listed on WP:GS#Active sanctions, which might explain it's seeming lack of use. While this wouldn't necessarily help with it actually being used it'd at least make people working in the topic area aware that yes, this is A ThingTM and that there should be less tolerance for provocative and wilfully-ignorant behaviour. Hell, the 2022 remarks controversy article above doesn't even have a MI DS tag, so it's not entirely clear the DS is actually in effect there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what the difference is supposed to be between WP:GS#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions and WP:DSTOPICS, but this is what I found:
- The table at WP:GS lacks any mention of the sanctions on Climate change, Editing of WP:BLPs, and Muhammad images.
- The table at WP:GS lists Antisemitism in Poland as a "Special DS", whatever that means, but WP:DSTOPICS doesn't list anything like that (unless I missed it).
- So WP:GS#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions is not just a rehash of the list of active discretionary sanctions, but I don't know what purpose the list is supposed to serve that's different from the list at WP:DSTOPICS. Philbert2.71828 01:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, it’s not in Twinkle or have I missed it? If not, no wonder it’s not used. I know the covid DS isn’t in Twinkle either, but that’s an obvious one. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I just found the problem in the script. Line 43 defines what the script recognizes as a DS topic code -- importantly, the code is limited to being between 1 and 4 characters. The code for this one is "muh-im", which is six characters, so the script doesn't see it. Same goes for "iranpol". You can see this by going to [2] and pasting in the top box
/(\|+.{1,4}=)/g
and pasting the contents of Template:Ds/topics into the "test string" box. Unfortunately, @Bellezzasolo, who maintained the script, looks to be much less active than before (though we always hope to see them around). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC) - Howdy. I'm one of the Twinkle maintainers. Just a quick note that I think you're talking about User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb, which isn't technically Twinkle, it's a user script that uses Twinkle's menu and interface. I would love for the maintainer of that one to come back and work on it, it's definitely a useful script. I have a couple open bug reports at User talk:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am still around, although with a job in software user scripts can get a bit samey...
- I think there was a technical reason for restricting the tag to 4 characters, with longer tags capturing more than just the tag. I think a lazy capture group would sort that issue. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- We could also add shortened topic codes. I brought this up at the DS template talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I just found the problem in the script. Line 43 defines what the script recognizes as a DS topic code -- importantly, the code is limited to being between 1 and 4 characters. The code for this one is "muh-im", which is six characters, so the script doesn't see it. Same goes for "iranpol". You can see this by going to [2] and pasting in the top box
- I don't know what the difference is supposed to be between WP:GS#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions and WP:DSTOPICS, but this is what I found:
- I think part of it is that the regime isn't listed on WP:GS#Active sanctions, which might explain it's seeming lack of use. While this wouldn't necessarily help with it actually being used it'd at least make people working in the topic area aware that yes, this is A ThingTM and that there should be less tolerance for provocative and wilfully-ignorant behaviour. Hell, the 2022 remarks controversy article above doesn't even have a MI DS tag, so it's not entirely clear the DS is actually in effect there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can a discretionary sanctions regime be useful if no sanctions are given out in years? I find myself at an odd sort of impasse. Had there been no DS regime in place already, would we be talking about imposing one? But, given that one already exists, perhaps it's better to leave if there are (a) some formal awareness notices given out, and (b) some use of DS that could have fallen under the scope of this regime, but went under a different one. At this point, I find myself ever so slightly leaning towards rescinding but that vote is not yet set in stone whatsoever. Maxim(talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't remove this DS. As one of the editors involved in this area I find it useful. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed; this seems like a situation where the DS was forgotten about and people ended up looking for the closest peg to fit the square hole. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Jéské Couriano. I agree those are all good reasons to support rescinding the remedy. In general, I support review of the topic areas and removal of ones that aren't needed. When TM DS was rescinded, no alert had been given in the topic area in over two years. No sanction would have even been possible, except against those named in the original case or those who'd already been sanctioned; some ds/aware users might have been sanctionable, but I am no longer able to tell who. I think this case's recent alerts, flare-up in disruption, and topic-adjacent admin action justify some caution here that would not have been warranted in the other recent cases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
As per Barkeep49's comments, I suggest that if the arbitration committee were to rescind its authorization for discretionary sanctions in this area, it could specify a future date when the authorization ends. This will allow the community the chance to authorize discretionary sanctions in replacement, should it wish. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is a fair point by Isaacl. While I personally am reticent to think it should, I think their overarching reason of giving time for community consideration in edge cases of DS removal is a reasonable one. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
As a someone who came from Muslim-majority country, I oppose the removal of this DS, even if it is rarely used. As far as I know, Wikipedia has long avoided big controversies sorrounding Islam which is a little bit of a miracle, considering other big sites like YouTube or video games like Fortnite wasn't able to avoid the controversy. If Wikipedia were to be put in this position, it could have a lot of implications especially with authorities in countries like Pakistan, or even Indonesia, for example. We should avoid this risk, or it is going to be a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that doesn't stop us being the target of manufactured controversy. Still, if there's support for keeping this around, at a minimum I'd support figuring out a way to make it more visible than it has been. It seems to me like a lot of the "inactivity" is more just a collective amnesia that this sanctions regime even exists. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have personally never made use of the Muhammad DS because (1) I somehow assumed that it was limited to Muhammad images and didn't realize that it covered "all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted" (mea culpa), (2) it's not listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions (why?!), and, (3) since I usually admin Islam-related articles that are also related to South Asia, I have access to WP:ARBIPA instead. But despite Muhammad-related articles not being a focus of my activities, even I have come across situations where the DS would have been useful had I been aware of it. To give a concrete example: the on-wiki disruption related to the (real-life) 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy spread to the Aisha article (see the recent uptick in activity at both the, already semi-protected since 2014, article and its talkpage; including by members of the Souniel Yadav and SherylOfficial sock farms). While it could have been a stretch to add the ARBIPA {{Ds/talk notice}} to Talk:Aisha, the Muhammad DS talk notice should have been added and the availability of the Muhammad DS could potentially have helped around the margins.
- (TL;DR) I wonder if the Muhammad DS isn't being used more because of a lack of awareness/proper documentation rather than a lack of need. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
As someone who has edited in the topic area, and been excruciatingly involved in discussions, such as about the Muhammad images, I would oppose removal of the DS. Even if it hasn't been used specifically for a block or official warning, it's useful in casual conversation to mention it, to try and lower the heat in a conversation. There are still regular reverts going on regarding PBUH, so the area is not entirely stable. To remove the DS, and then say that the community needs to re-discuss things to get a new sanction, is kind of terrifying. Previous discussions of this nature were so hot that they took literally years to try and craft a consensus. We do *not* need to re-open that can of worms (no offense, WTT). In other words, I'm of the opinion of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Please leave the sanction in place. --Elonka 06:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Requests for enforcement
SaintAviator
SaintAviator blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin sanction) for disruptive editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SaintAviator
WP:NOTFORUM rants about their belief that Ukraine/Zelenskyy are Nazis/Hitler etc.; purposefully spreading misinformation. No attempts at, or interest in, constructive collaboration. They were topic banned under ARBEE for exactly the same behaviour in 2017.
Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Has a history of disruptively using talk pages and has been warned adequately over multiple years. Deliberately uses a misleading signature in order to confuse editors.
Discussion concerning SaintAviatorStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SaintAviatorStatement by (username)Result concerning SaintAviator
|
Newimpartial
No action taken. This appears to be outside of the AP2 discretionary sanctions authority, and there are no behavioral issues that require immediate use of standard admin actions either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Newimpartial
Newimpartial did not violate 3RR, but 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Newimpartial has continually exhibited almost every bullet point of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing over an extended period of time. Especially disruptive is Newimpartial's tendency to remove cited claims with inadequate explanation, and try to boomerang requests for clarification by alleging "sealioning". It is a strategy designed to stonewall. This is not a feature of their interaction with me, but a feature of their approach to the topic of the Frankfurt School. If administrators are interested, I can point to further diffs in 2020. While collecting diffs, something I found no evidence for is Newimpartial building encyclopedic content about Marxism when there wasn't an obvious culture war angle.
Discussion concerning NewimpartialStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NewimpartialThis is very silly. WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?
Senallen is complaining about my partial reverts of their edits for which they have been unable to obtain consensus on the relevant Talk page.[6]
Their filing here seems either to misunderstand a large number of my edits. The issue in this minor removal, for example, is not whether
As far as the allegation that This filing appears to simply be Senallen's attempt to "punish" an opponent when they don't get their way on Talk; I do wonder about any WP:SPA on this topic area whether they have edited in it (or been banned from it) before, but my having wondered aloud about this last year is scarcely a ground for "punishment", then or now. As far as disrupting the topic area - Senallen's consistent POV pushing in article space, in spite of multiple editors' objections on Talk, is where disruption has been taking place; my refusal to WP:SATISFY them is not the real issue. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Sideswipe9thI may be mistaken, but are the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Marxist cultural analysis articles and their associated talk pages actually subject to the AP2 DS? I've had a quick skim of the diffs provided for the contributions from this month, and cannot see anything obvious that is covered under AP2. What am I missing here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersThis filing is erroneous from the start. The first diff is presented with "Their edit summaries did not explain the reverts", which is incorrect. Newimpartial's edit summary, Statement by AquillionEven if these were covered by WP:AP2, I fail to see how this is anything but a content dispute, or how Newimpartial's behavior could possibly be worse than Sennalen's own. Sennalen WP:BOLDly rewrote massive parts of the article over the course of several days; reverting a bold rewrite is entirely reasonable. Sennalen then revert-warred to retain their changes: [12][13][14] (note in the first revert, Sennalen implied that their proposed additions should remain in place during discussions.) The discussions on talk don't seem to be producing any clear consensus for Sennalen's changes, at a glance, which makes edit-warring them back in even worse. It seems like Sennalen believed that the fact that it was a few days before anyone raised objections means that their edits are now the WP:STATUSQUO, which is definitely not the case - there's some valid disagreement over when text has implicit consensus, but a few days is clearly insufficient. I don't think this has reached the point where it would be more than a content-dispute, but if there are conduct issues here then they concern Sennalen more than Newimpartial. Also, this is tangential, but glancing over the edits and talk-page discussions I'm extremely skeptical about Sennalen's assertion that their edits are focused on "explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong." That is clearly not the locus of dispute, and the insistence that it is strains good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by TewdarAnybody new showing up to this article whose viewpoint diverges from the consensus (and by this, I do not mean making claims like "Marxists have taken over America by pushing drugs to students" or whatevs, but content based on academic sources, Sage Encyclopedia entries, OED definitions, that sort of thing, all of which have been either completely or partially excluded from the article at various stages because "WP:CONSENSUS") will be (explicitly or implicity, often explicitly) accused of being a believer in the conspiracy theory, a sockpuppet, a troll, or a racist, by a small group of editors who often seem to prefer to rely on their own unsourced original analysis of capitalization, or unorthodox quantification procedures, while the primary determinant of source inclusion seems to be whether it might be used by someone, somewhere, to somehow 'prove' that the conspiracy is 'true'. Blatantly obvious misrepresentation of sources, that any L1 English speaker can see are false, require a month-long RfC to remove. Getting rid of falsely attributed quotations takes serious effort and a lot of time, with resistance justified by statements that boil down to "I don't give a **** if we misrepresent a bunch of antisemites!" I appreciate the way the grizzled veterans are guarding the article against the edits of dodgy conspiracy theorists who show up quite regularly to moan on the talk page. But I think they're overdoing it a bit. Tewdar 08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Newimpartial
|
Johnpacklambert
Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Johnpacklambert
Discussion concerning JohnpacklambertStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Johnpacklambert
Statement by NableezyClear violation, should result in a block. nableezy - 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDayIf you're going to be blocked? it should be for no more then one week. Because of the t-ban, you're going to be under extra scrutiny. Best bet? walk away entirely from anything to do with 'deletions'. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) A month block, for a mistake? That's too harsh, IMHO. These types of blocks are suppose to be "preventative" in nature, not "punitive". GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonI believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. That isn't an excuse, but a problem. We apparently have an editor who doesn't understand the restrictions, maybe because he isn't capable of understanding or isn't trying to understand. I don't know what should be done, but I don't think that the usual pattern of escalating sanctions will be effective. I believe his statement, and that is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by ShibbolethinkUnfortunately, I do think this probably qualifies as a violation of the "spirit" of JPL's TBAN, if not the actual letter. I've been following this user's saga from the periphery, just as a lurker on the litany of ANI threads. I haven't really interacted with them otherwise.
One of the things I think we should all consider on AE threads is "Is there a better course of action the user could have followed, in good faith, to exercise the impulse they felt? If so, what would it have been?" In this case, JPL could have gotten clarification from an admin if the talk page comment would have run afoul of their TBAN. They could have posted about the page's actual issues (e.g. notability, etc) on a noticeboard or Wikiproject page, without juxtaposing it directly next to someone else talking about a PROD. etc. etc. As to the length or severity of this violation of a TBAN, though, I think some of the suggested durations are a bit harsh, aren't they? One month, for posting " I know it typically isn't the purview of commenting non-admins to discuss the length of such blocks, and they should be escalating in nature. But I would appeal to empathy. The user clearly did not intend to violate the TBAN, and it is also clearly a grey area that we all think is worth talking about.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by FloqDo not believe JPL when he expresses remorse. Or, at least, do not assume that remorse correlates with a reduced likelihood of violating the ban in the future. I was suckered into believing how distraught he claimed to be during a previous block situation, and tricked into intervening which, in retrospect, likely saved JPL from a community ban at that time. I suggest imposing as long a block as uninvolved admins are willing to place. JPL is a timesink, and I imagine he has wasted more than a hundred person-hours of other people's time over the last half year, and probably more than half of that time wasting is due to my previous intervention preventing a community ban. I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Johnpacklambert
|