Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Petition to remove Appeal to Jimbo
Hi all, as following up to the above discussion Extraordinary Writ and I have started this petition, which needs a 100 signatures as per the formal amendment process. Galobtter (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Izno, Barkeep49, Isaacl, Newyorkbrad, Thryduulf, Awesome Aasim, Novem Linguae, Aquillion, Beeblebrox, Guerillero, Primefac, Randy Kryn, North8000, Jehochman, Nableezy, Bradv, and Wehwalt: pinging everyone who commented above. Galobtter (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed amendment live
As the petition for an ARBPOL amendment to remove the right for Jimbo Wales to act as an appeal route for arbcom decisions has received 100 signatures a referendum on the proposal has been opened.
It requires a majority in favour with at least 100 supporting editors.
I'll also apologise for the rather duplicative double posting here and WT:ACN. It was requested on the petition page, so I've gone for "when in doubt, spread broadly".
CENT, WLN, WP:AN, user talk:Jimbo Wales and VPP have all been notified. Please feel free to provide neutral notices to other relevant fora. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
What is going on with the WP:ACN archives?
I was looking through one of the archives of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard when I noticed something a bit out of the ordinary, and with the help of some magic incantations I have sussed out that something strange is indeed going on.
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 1: 28,291 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 2: 46,509 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 3: 34,428 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4: 33,069 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 5: 111,002 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 6: 152,724 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7: 139,113 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 8: 117,408 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 9: 108,944 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 10: 205,066 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11: 203,825 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12: 204,266 bytes
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13: 199,399 bytes
Why are the last four archives so damn big? Archive 13, for example, has a hundred and fifty sections, and goes all the way back to September 2020. It looks like User:Lowercase sigmabot III is the one who moves threads from ACN to the archives (indeed,WP:ACN is configured to make archives sized at an eye-watering 200k). Huh??? Can someone fix this? I would do it myself, but all of the pages in ArbCom space are plastered with stern warnings not to dick around with them unless you are a clerk or arbitrator, so I leave this in your hands. jp×g 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: if there is some other talk page where this is more appropriate, feel free to move it there, as I'm not sure I have come to the right place for this. jp×g 20:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see an issue with 200k as the archive size. Izno (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Izno beat me to it but there are other community forums that have a much larger archive amount than ACN. Why is 200k something that needs fixing? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- It seems kind of unwieldly to me. But looking at a few other archives of pages, they seem pretty big too: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_249 is 361,339, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120 is 711,465, IncidentArchive1121 is 741,388, and IncidentArchive 1122 is 814,496. I have a strong recollection of reading some arcane policy page a while ago to the effect that we should try not to let pages get much larger than 100kb if it can be avoided. I can't find it now, so perhaps I am merely a fool. jp×g 00:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure you are thinking about the MOS guidance WP:TOOBIG which only is meant to apply to articles. It offers no guidance about talk pages or talk page archives. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- 200K is what the backfilled WP:ARCA archives use. While not small, taking a random archive such as Archive 120 there are 7 sections/archived ARCAs. Limiting such archives to 100K would mean there would be 3 discussions on that archive page, which is probably too few discussions to have per archive. Therefore, I would suggest that a general rule on no more than 100K would be an issue for high traffic noticeboards.
- What you may be thinking of is WP:TALKCOND, which recommends that the discussions on the talk page not exceed 75K. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 04:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- It seems kind of unwieldly to me. But looking at a few other archives of pages, they seem pretty big too: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_249 is 361,339, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120 is 711,465, IncidentArchive1121 is 741,388, and IncidentArchive 1122 is 814,496. I have a strong recollection of reading some arcane policy page a while ago to the effect that we should try not to let pages get much larger than 100kb if it can be avoided. I can't find it now, so perhaps I am merely a fool. jp×g 00:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Statements
WP:ARBPOL states that any interested editor
may add statements to case pages, yet all pages are extended-confirmed protected. How is this consistent with the plain language of the policy? Best, CandyScythe (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I assume this is in reference to the currently open case? It's a bit late in the day to be bringing this up, but the logged reason protection was added is "Opening analysis phase; EC only given standing restriction in the topic area". The pahse we are in now, the proposed decision, is the final phase of a case and the PD is only directly edited by arbitrators or clerks. The rest of the case sections are closed at this point, and have been since before you created this account. You are still free to post comments on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was really just reading the PD talk page and thought of maybe making an observation but noticed it was EC protected. CandyScythe (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I see you edited your message. The problem is I can't. (it's EC protected) Best, CandyScythe (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49:, did we mean to have ECP on the talk page as well? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox @CandyScythe yes. The editing restriction is applied to "edits and pages" so talk pages are included in the protection level. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, the committee does not have the authority to override WP:ARBPOL by passing a motion. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would say this a matter better discussed at WP:ARCA. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- This sounds like something that just needs a simple copyedit by ArbCom. The phrase "any interested editor" was almost certainly written without intending to create this misinterpretation. (In other words, it seems pretty obviously intended to mean "open to the community", not "it is forbidden to enact page protection".) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that
any interested editor
actually meansany interested editor fulfilling criteria set by ArbCom
and to think otherwise is a pretty obvious misinterpretation? And that ArbCom should correct this mistake by unilaterallyamendingcopyediting WP:ARBPOL? CandyScythe (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that
- This sounds like something that just needs a simple copyedit by ArbCom. The phrase "any interested editor" was almost certainly written without intending to create this misinterpretation. (In other words, it seems pretty obviously intended to mean "open to the community", not "it is forbidden to enact page protection".) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- WP:Protection policy allows me as an individual admin to protect pages I believe are or could be subject to disruption. A motion passed by ArbCom seems like a valid reason to believe a case talk page in the same area as the motion was made could be subject to disruption. Are you suggesting I cannot employ such policy in protecting a case talk page because ARBPOL says "any interested editor" despite that I have the individual power to protect the page under community policy? (WP:Wikilawyering might be something for you to read.) I agree with Beeblebrox then: If you think there is a policy issue that must be resolved, I invite you to WP:ARCA.
- A different member of ArbCom than those who have already left comments here suggested that you leave your statement here if you would prefer, or perhaps WT:Arbitration/Requests, where the original question would have been more appropriate. I do not have a particular issue with that myself, and perhaps it will make you feel like you have been heard meaningfully. But the restriction exists for the reason that this area has been subjected to rather precocious sockpuppets, and that your account has the hallmarks of such an account. Not, mind you, to say that you are one. Izno (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- ArbCom talk page might not be the best place to invoke wikilawyering, and in any case, I would suggest you are more "guilty" of that given that it requires quite extensive mental gymnastics to turn "everyone can comment" into something else. I fully understand the arguments why protecting is desirable, but to quote Barkeep:
we all shouldn't pretend it (the ARBPOL) says something it doesn't because what it does say isn't the way we want it to work
. [1] I appreciate the invitations to ARCA, but given how things appear to be heading in the PD page, I think this issue will be moot before the committee would be able to dispose of anything there. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- ArbCom talk page might not be the best place to invoke wikilawyering, and in any case, I would suggest you are more "guilty" of that given that it requires quite extensive mental gymnastics to turn "everyone can comment" into something else. I fully understand the arguments why protecting is desirable, but to quote Barkeep:
- I would say this a matter better discussed at WP:ARCA. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully, the committee does not have the authority to override WP:ARBPOL by passing a motion. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox @CandyScythe yes. The editing restriction is applied to "edits and pages" so talk pages are included in the protection level. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49:, did we mean to have ECP on the talk page as well? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)