Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: American politics 2
Initiated by Interstellarity at 15:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- [diff of notification Username]
- [diff of notification Username]
Statement by Interstellarity
The Watergate scandal article seems to be covered for the AP2 sanction, but it was placed before the date was changed from 1932 to 1992. I am hoping that someone can clarify if the sanction should be removed.
Statement by Thryduulf (AP2)
Are the sanctions still required? The talk page is extremely quiet and a glance at the article history shows nothing that the pending changes isn't handling and might even be handled better by standard semi protection. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Tamzin
I think a lot of the issue here is some poorly-worded templates. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Ds § Finally handling "legacy topic areas". Arbs, would anything I've proposed there require ArbCom sign-off to implement? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: We could easily keep track of which topic areas have active page restrictions by tweaking the template to categorize restrictions by topic area. That would leave a few edge cases where a talk page is marked with a template other than {{ds/talk notice}}, but that's not something that should be happening in the first place, so good to clean up in either case, and is a one-time up-front cost. There'd also be the matter of checking for active sanctions against editors in each area, but again, minimal cost, and once you've assessed that once, it'll be very easy to keep track of going forward.But in the alternative, that part of my proposal is easily severable from the rest. Just keep all the repealed topic areas under the current single heading on {{ds/topics/doc}}, but append a note to the effect of In most cases, sanctions and restrictions in rescinded areas remain in effect, and sanctions and restrictions in superseded cases have been transferred to the newer authorization; see the relevant motions in the cases linked below for more information. Or don't do that at all and ignore that sub-proposal entirely, since the editnotices and talknotices will explain, and that's the main thing that matters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, after looking through case history and WP:AELOG, the legacy/obsolete breakdown for fully-rescinded DS regimes would appear to be:
- Page restrictions in effect:
- Macedonia:[a] Many sanctions, mostly of now-inactive editors; 1RRs at Kosovo, Croatian language, World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia; indef semi at Macedonian.
- Editor sanctions still in effect, but no page restrictions:
- Ancient Egyptian race controversy: 1 TBAN of a now-inactive editor. (An indef is also logged, but I don't think that counts?)
- Austrian economics: 1 TBAN of an active editor
- Ayn Rand: 1 TBAN of a now-inactive editor
- Sexology as applies to trans issues:[a] 1 0RR of a banned user's sock; 1 TBAN of a since-banned user. There's also one sanction from 2022; not sure if that's a clerical error or if there's a special circumstance.
- Transcendental meditation: 1 behavioral restriction against a now-inactive editor.
- Obsolete:
- ... because all sanctions/restrictions have been moved to other cases:
- GamerGate → Gender and sexuality
- GGTF → Gender and sexuality
- ... because all sanctions/restrictions have expired or been lifted:
- Gibraltar
- Landmark Worldwide
- Scientology (as best I can tell? the logging is a bit of a mess)
- Senkaku Islands
- Tea Party movement
- Waldorf education
- ... because no sanctions/restrictions were ever imposed:
- ... because all sanctions/restrictions have been moved to other cases:
Notes
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:52, 8 October 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.
American politics 2: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Existing sanctions placed before the date change remain in effect. See the motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: this is anexample of why I support the proposed change in DSREFORM to allow any admin to remove page restrictions after a year. But I will note that as the sanctioning admin is no longer an administrator, you would be free to modify it if you wish under current DS rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) with the above, but agreed (though technically this is a page restriction, not a sanction, but the motion still keeps it in force). Primefac (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Barkeep in full. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Tamzin, your suggestions there sound great. Under the current rules they require arbcom approval. (The current WP:DS2022 process seeks to allow clerks to authorize changes after consulting the committee, rather than requiring the committee itself to authorize changes.) Consider this note my vote of approval and if no arb objects I think you should consider this ARCA to be approval. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- On the one hand I can see the wisdom of what @Tamzin proposes especially with Muhammed image's upcoming sunsest. On the other hand, it creates more for future clean-up as arbcom would have to figure out if the sanction still exists anywhere, especially given that repealing page protections is going to get easier in the upcoming DS reform. I am not sure that this change offers enough benefit to justify the increased bureaucracy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's a clear and significant upgrade in documentation versus a frankly pretty small amount of cleanup burden. It'll take much more time for Tamzin to code up the template than it'll take the clerks to check periodically whether something is done (and that is really not urgent). As I've discussed with you, better templates and documentation is my #1 goal with DS, and this is an example of why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am guessing you feel a lot more strongly about this than I do and that should perhaps carry the day but I think this creates work now and in the future. Like if this had been in place, doing the AMPOL date change would have been a ton more work as existing sanctions get sorted into whether it's still applicable or needed to shift to the legacy. We've gone 20+ months with this change before anyone brought it up and have done loads of these in the past. You say that this is better template and documentation and I say "sure but is it worth the cost of doing it?" to which I remain very unsure despite what you and Tamzin say here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- We have a lot of backlogs on Wikipedia that are not urgent and are done on an as-available basis. Recategorizing old AP2 page restrictions seems like it falls in that category. It's important to me because there are a lot of little unfriendly things in our DS documentation that in combination make it really hard for editors to understand and participate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am guessing you feel a lot more strongly about this than I do and that should perhaps carry the day but I think this creates work now and in the future. Like if this had been in place, doing the AMPOL date change would have been a ton more work as existing sanctions get sorted into whether it's still applicable or needed to shift to the legacy. We've gone 20+ months with this change before anyone brought it up and have done loads of these in the past. You say that this is better template and documentation and I say "sure but is it worth the cost of doing it?" to which I remain very unsure despite what you and Tamzin say here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's a clear and significant upgrade in documentation versus a frankly pretty small amount of cleanup burden. It'll take much more time for Tamzin to code up the template than it'll take the clerks to check periodically whether something is done (and that is really not urgent). As I've discussed with you, better templates and documentation is my #1 goal with DS, and this is an example of why. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- On the one hand I can see the wisdom of what @Tamzin proposes especially with Muhammed image's upcoming sunsest. On the other hand, it creates more for future clean-up as arbcom would have to figure out if the sanction still exists anywhere, especially given that repealing page protections is going to get easier in the upcoming DS reform. I am not sure that this change offers enough benefit to justify the increased bureaucracy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Tamzin, your suggestions there sound great. Under the current rules they require arbcom approval. (The current WP:DS2022 process seeks to allow clerks to authorize changes after consulting the committee, rather than requiring the committee itself to authorize changes.) Consider this note my vote of approval and if no arb objects I think you should consider this ARCA to be approval. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep's answer to the question is completely accurate. I appreciate there is a possibility that the page restriction is not the right one though. WormTT(talk) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Initiated by Red-tailed hawk at 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Request for Comment, as amended by Amendment (September 2022)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Valereee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Request for Comment, as amended by Amendment (September 2022)
- I am asking that a decision of RfC moderator Valereee to strike question #7 from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale be overturned by amendment and the question be restored for discussion.
Statement by Red-tailed hawk
I am asking that a decision of Valereee to strike question #7 from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale be overturned and Question 7 be restored for discussion. The proposal would create a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, as follows:
A12: No reliably sourced indication of importance (mass-created articles).
This criterion applies to any mass-created article that does not have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This would apply to any mass-created article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is a lower standard than notability. If the sourced claim's importance or significance is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
After discussing with Valereee on the talk page of the RfC, Valeree clarified that the reason for the solution being out-of-scope was not that the principle that "all mass-created articles must have a reliable sourced indication of important" is out-of-scope, agreeing that the proposals:
All mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This will be enforced by some method determined in the future
all mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. Mass-creating articles without doing so is considered disruptive editing
would appear to be in-scope for this RfC (though Valereee expressed concerns about the ability of the latter to attain consensus). The rationale for striking Question #7 and not the other two without an enforcement mechanism was that the particular solution to the problems posed by creation of articles at scale involves deletion is focused primarily on creating a new criterion for speedy deletion and doesn't feel like it's something that is keeping bad articles from being mass created
. That being said, RfC Rule#2 notes that [t]he sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about policy going forward surrounding creation of articles at scale and to form consensus on those solutions
, and I frankly fail to see why the moderator would restrict the ability to propose a policy solution relating to the creation of articles at scale on the sole basis that doing so directly involves deletion of articles. This leaves the option of floating the general principle without an enforcement mechanism (which leaves it vulnerable to criticism that the proposal lacks an enforcement mechanism) or the option of treating this through the lens of user misconduct (which I'm not sure is the best way to handle this), but it bars us from discussion what I believe is the best way to deal with mass-created articles that violate the central principle. The discussion had involved several editors, both in support and opposition, before it was closed by the moderator.
As the arbitration decision, as amended in September 2022, states that [a]ny appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
, I ask that ArbCom provide final clarity by either overturning the moderator's action to re-open the close or explicitly affirm the decision of the moderator that the proposal would be appropriate for discussion at what the moderator terms the RfC on AfD
. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Valereee
The question of RTH's that I hatted was primarily about creating a new CSD. I think this is better handled at the second RfC. I do understand there's a blurry line between the two RfCs, but my feeling is that the question of deletion processes for dealing with problematic mass creation is better handled at the second RfC, after we've discovered whether the community can come up with a solution to problematic mass creation itself. Or even a definition of problematic mass creation. I believe until we can answer those questions, discussing deletion is probably spinning our wheels.
Statement by Rhododendrites
This seems overcomplicated for what is ultimately: does a proposal deal with creating articles? Go ahead and propose it. Does it deal with deleting articles? Wait for the next RfC. Yes, all of them are going to be connected, which is why we're having both and not stopping at the end of this RfC. The collapsing by Valereee seems like an example of exactly why someone has been given the ability to moderate the discussion IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I find myself agreeing with Valereee and Rhododendrites on this matter; the first RFC is to
find and develop solutions to issues surrounding article creation at scale
, with the second to beon article deletions at scale
. Creating a new CSD category pretty clearly falls into the latter camp. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC) - I agree with V, R, and PF in this matter. --Izno (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. This issue belongs in the next RfC. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- This was amended to allow for two RfCs and gives the mods discretion about how to sequence that. I see no reason to think that this decision falls outside a reasonable use of that discretionary power. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with @Barkeep49. We did not impose limits on the moderators' ability to sequence the questions, and the moderators' decision was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Amendment request: Iranian politics
Initiated by Stefka Bulgaria at 09:34, 12 October 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
- Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Appeal of topic ban
Statement by Stefka Bulgaria
I'm not familiar with these appeals; sorry if I didn't fill this correctly. It's been a year since I was topic-banned from editing articles relating to Iranian politics. My edits in other areas (since I was topic-banned) have been constructive, and I've had a good chance to reflect and learn from the issues I had with other editors back then. With everything that's been happening in Iran these last weeks, I think I could be a useful contributor in this area once again. Also, editors I had issues prior to being topic-banned have mostly been topic-banned themselves or blocked for socking, so I don't believe that I would have problems working collaboratively in this area again. Anyways, thank you for your consideration.
- Addressing comments below, last year's experience had an effect on my desire to participate in other talk/pages as a whole (and it still does); which is why I've been mainly reviewing new pages. I'm aware that if I were allowed to participate in Iranian-politics again, a misstep of any kind on my behalf would likely lead to me being indef'ed from this area. This request is for making occasional corrections in this area; nothing more. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (Iranian politics)
They were topic banned because they engaged in bludgeoning, stonewalling, and degrading of discussions.
and filed verbose RfCs in an attempt to railroad preferred changes
. They've done none of that since the topic ban was imposed, but they've done almost nothing else in talk spaces either. Since the case closed they've only made 9 edits to the talk: namespace that were not just page moves or wikiproject tagging (and one of them was a copyedit to their own comment) and 0 edits to the Wikipedia talk:, Template talk:, Category talk: and File talk: namespaces. Almost all their edits in user talk: have been speedy deletion notices (most of their work has been new page patrolling). Their four edits to Draft talk: came today and all are related to moving their personal sandbox to draftspace. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 12 October 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.
Iranian politics: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Iranian politics: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I find myself somewhat on the fence. On the one hand, the issues that led to the levied sanctions have not been repeated in other venues. On the other hand, as Thryduulf mentions, there have not really been that many edits or "opportunities" (for lack of a better word) for that behaviour to show. It makes me think of an unsuccessful RfA candidate who then spends the next twelve months carefully avoiding anything that could be seen as controversial in an attempt at a second successful bid for adminship. In the interest of good faith, I do not necessarily think this is what happened; when an editor goes from averaging about 2000 edits per year to less than a tenth of that it does demonstrate that the topic area in question certainly was their primary focus, and they might not have found a new niche. I would like to hear from other editors, though. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)