Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Clarification and Amendment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 13 July 2022 (archive one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 115←Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132


Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (April 2022)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Shrike at 17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

This regarding following from WP:PIA 

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

Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [1] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen[2] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/WP:ANI/WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE

@Worm That Turned: The rule was made to block socking, IPs and new users have nothing to do there, except if case is filed against them, so such users that want to comment there are probably returning users the shouldn't comment for example the IP first edits is some internal wiki proposal that is a low chance that not experienced user will come there [3],[4] anyhow, in the end, I want some consistency right now comment by non-ECP user was removed[5] while comment by IP was restored [6] --Shrike (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I must say I totally agree with Wugapodes also I doesn't put any additional strain on AE admins as with articles the removing of such comments is usually done by regular users Shrike (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bishonen But that what happens in article space almost every time non-ecp user make edit, user from other camp are removing it citing WP:ARBPIA. That the usual practice. Shrike (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 What about ANI/AN,for example at RSN in various RFCs the users are doing the clerking and removing non-ECP comments and I think personally its the best way per WP:NOTBURO if there are some dispute that can be always brought to uninvolved admin or at WP:AE Shrike (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Please see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).

  • Adding: Arbcom "owns" AE but traditionally takes little interest in it. Not sure if anybody is interested in a trip down memory lane, but it was in fact me that agitated for disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from posting requests at AE, back in 2015, and me that added the wording about it to the pink template.[8] You can see me pushing for it and nearly giving up in the face of lack of Arbcom interest, here, but in the end, they allowed it. Before 2015, it had been quite a problem, with disruptive requests repeatedly opened by socks and dynamic IPs, which wasted some admin time and also — a much bigger problem — forced the unfortunate targets of these usually bad-faith reports to repeatedly defend themselves. That was my focus at the time, and it seemed easier to get Arbcom to allow the smaller restriction, only against opening reports, while still welcoming everybody to post. If the current committee (which seems more interested! good!) wants to enlarge the restriction, I've no objection. But for myself, I agree with Worm's and Zero's comments that AE admins should have discretion here, since they run AE anyway.
  • As for Shrike's removal, it seems a bad idea to me that an editor who has already posted an opposite viewpoint,[9][10][11][12] and has skin in the game, should remove an IP post (twice, yet). Even if it's the right action, it's the wrong user. If this ends with IPs and noobs being generally disallowed, perhaps something about involved users leaving them alone should still be part of it. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC).

Statement by Zero

I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in.

However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zerotalk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zerotalk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here.

Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [13] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [14] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry.
This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by AE regular, Dennis Brown

I've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

For the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 20 March 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.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't claim to be an expert on PIA remedies. However, my reading of the extended confirmed restriction which includes PIA says IPs cannot comment at AE. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with barkeep49's interpretation. But if this causes problems for AE I'm open to some kind of change. The status quo is that AE is an internal project discussion for ECR proposes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Concur with Barkeep49 and L235. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • We've got a problem here though - because Bishonen is also right that the big template at the top of the AE page is pretty clear that ALL users can comment. It's even juxtaposed with a statement that IP editors cannot file. In other words, we've got two conflicting guidelines. It's tempting to accept ECR, because that was more recently put in place, but I fall on the other side, that we should focus on AE. I don't want to make the process even more onerous for the admins who take the time to actually work in that area - they already have enough rules to remember, but saying they should monitor the topic that IPs are commenting on for a minor note about whether they can comment seems over the top. Secondly AE is an enforcement board, and therefore one of the areas that we sometimes historically except restrictions, per WP:BANEX, I'd like to push that way as a general principle. Finally, there is the wiki philosophy of doing the right thing, thinking about the outcomes, thinking about levels of disruption, thinking about net benefit - I trust our admins to monitor the board and will back them up on what they do, I'd rather they weren't hampered by the rules, when trying to do the right thing. WormTT(talk) 09:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Zero0000's workflow makes sense to me. @Shrike I understand the purpose behind it, but blanket bans and removal without consideration doesn't sit well with me. WormTT(talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree the wording at AE should be correct, no matter what we decide here. That said, extended confirmed areas, including this one, have often been plagued with new editors who are disruptive at AE, including filing retaliatory/battleground reports. ArbComs of days gone past did not land on the noticeboard wording by accident. I'm pretty reluctant to backtrack on that in topic areas admins have repeatedly told us are the hardest to patrol and which many will not work in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    If that's what the AE admins want, I'm all for it. I'd like to defer to their discretion as a whole. WormTT(talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    I appreciate the comments on this topic. I believe I now sit at the same point as Wugapodes' final paragraph - that we should update the text as he suggests and that admins should have the discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. So, in a similar situation to this - Shrike could remove the comment, Bishonen could review and restore if she felt it was helpful. And we can all go back to getting on with other things. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm going to take a slightly tangential stance and say that AE should not be open to all users; AE should be limited to those with an account. In addition, I think the EC restrictions should apply to AE reports in that area. My thinking is that AE is an internal project discussion where we want a high signal-to-noise ratio and robust record keeping.
    IPs will fall into two camps: newbies and drifters. Newbies should not be commenting at AE for the same reason we don't let them comment in EC areas. Not only are they often socks, the policy knowledge required to participate helpfully is usually beyond them; they wind up being more noise than signal and can quickly cross the line into disruptive. The other type of IP that would comment at AE are what I'm going to call "drifters"; long term editors who, for whatever reason, do not want to create an account and periodically "drift" from IP to IP without an obvious meatball:SerialIdentity. There's nothing wrong with this, and many of these editors are helpful in various parts of the encyclopedia, but the benefit of inviting them to comment at AE is low. It opens us up to all the problems of newbies and socks (noise) for the occasional helpful comment (signal). The nature of IP-based editors is that they lack a robust meatball:AuditTrail, and that makes it hard to monitor who is using AE and for what ends. There is also the community aspect: drifters choose not to register an account and join our community, and while that's fine, community administration should be left to the community (see meatball:RewardReputation). So while there is some benefit to allowing IP drifters to comment, the highly administrative, procedural, and controversial nature of AE makes IP editing in general a net negative.
    Now, with all that said, I think it makes it easier to understand why I think EC restrictions should apply at AE: there are only newbies with none of the benefits of IP drifters. The reason we would not want newbie IPs commenting at AE is the same reason we don't want newbie accounts editing PIA articles or discussions. They lower the signal-to-noise ratio when genuinely new and are usually socks when they are policy-adept. For the few clean starts or IPs-turned-account, they will be able to participate when they have a sufficient reputation (i.e. 30/500) which I think is a feature not a bug.
    So, all together, I would suggest the following text: All registered users are welcome to comment on requests not covered by extended confirmation requirements. I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bish that Shrike was the wrong person to clerk this at AE. Uninvolved administrators are already authorized to clerk that noticeboard and assuming current consensus holds, would continue to be authorized to do so around IP moving forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Shrike AE is not, by design, like any other noticeboard. The rules are different and so what it means to not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles (to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the issues we've had with socks, including some that have been used to harrass other editors, in the topic areas under ECR and that AE has been one place that has been a source of conflict, I'm in favor of saying ECR applies to AE also. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a practical point that hasn't been publicly discussed where there are certain specific editors we do not want participating in the area (including AE), and ECR helps to remove incentive for those editors. I am inclined the same way as Barkeep, and to change the AE text accordingly to account for ECR topic areas. All users are welcome to comment on requests. to All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate ECR. or some such is closer to what I would recommend. Explicitly, I think this should not be at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

Extended-confirmed restrictions apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at Arbitration Enforcement when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header is modified by replacing All users are welcome to comment on requests. with All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction).

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
  • While I support the ideas involved here, I don't like setting a precedent that it takes an ArbCom motion to change the AE header. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Barkeep49: I am not too worried about that. AE admins: feel free to keep updating that header like normal. This motion is just making a one-time change in accordance with the clarification in the first sentence of the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm fine just updating the AE header if that's where we're all at. That hadn't happened yet so I assumed we were waiting on some kind of motion before doing so. Another option which doesn't require outright passing a motion to modify the AE header is to clarify the section of WP:ECR by modifying the text of A1 to read Internal project discussions include[...]noticeboard discussions (including arbitration enforcement). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I would change the inserted part to except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). Listing one restriction like ECR seems to imply that no other restrictions are in effect, whereas in fact if you are e.g. topic banned you can't comment unless an exemption applies. Have also copyedited the motion slightly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with the spirit of the motion, but I share Barkeep49's concern about setting a precedent that may come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Are there any objections to one of us just going and making this edit? Maxim(talk) 02:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    Given the lack of objection from other arbs (which in this instance I take as silent consent) and some sense that we don't want to start handling the AE header by motion, I have gone ahead and made the edit Cabayi proposed above as an individual administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Extended-confirmed restriction (draft)

Draft 1

The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Extended confirmed restriction) are amended by appending at the end the following list item:

  • E. Uninvolved administrators may in specific cases grant an exception to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a specific internal project discussion.
  • OR: E. Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE), notwithstanding this restriction.
Draft 2

The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Arbitration enforcement noticeboard

Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow an editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) notwithstanding any restrictions that would have otherwise prevented the editor from participating (such as the extended confirmed restriction).

Arbitrator comments
  • I know some arbitrators were planning on going the other way so I wanted to provide draft language for this. This would be a change from the status quo but I suppose I could be convinced. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If we go this route, I'd prefer the method in Draft 1 and limiting its scope to AE rather than internal discussions generally. I think Draft 2 could be a good idea if we had more to add to it, but at the moment creating a section on AE just to note an exception seems more confusing than clarifying. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Ryulong

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Mythdon at 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Ryulong 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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Mythdon

I have a question as to whether the restrictions listed here are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed here and here) has expired.

Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following this discussion. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was blocked indefinitely shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said here "To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)" (the topic ban listed here here had already been imposed by that time).

I was unblocked in 2012 and back in 2016, I appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN, which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed here?

Based on to run under the current restrictions and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that to run under the current restrictions meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here.

It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation?

—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I'm not sure what the policy was regarding discretionary sanctions back when this was originally imposed, but I've had different administrators give conflicting opinions about whether they thought the sanction(s) would remain in force after the probation expired.
One administrator here said he was sure he did not have the authority to impose sanctions longer than the duration of the probation (in response to my question asking him why he changed a revert ban from "indefinite" to "for the duration of Mythdon's conduct probation". While another administrator at the time (Yunshui) said they "still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period.". While the imposing administrator (Fritzpol, who's now retired) said "When your conduct probation is over, you can ask me for a review and I'll look into it.". While FayssalF's clarification here as well as the remedy here (that I mentioned earlier), doesn't specify whether the "current restrictions" included the discretionary sanction(s) or not.
It's conflicting clarification that I'd gotten between 2009 up until my 2012 unblock, even though the case itself doesn't mention whether the sanctions remain in force or not. But based on your clarification as well as the clarification I received over Discord (where I was advised by an arbitrator to bring my concerns here) and having read WP:ACDS, it sounds like the discussion here didn't actually revoke this topic ban and that this does remain in force under current policy.
Either way, if there's a motion along these lines, I'd be okay with just the topic ban portion being superseded (even if the interaction ban remains in force thereafter). The main concern for me (if applicable) is to have the consensus here reflected/shown on the case itself. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
All of that answers that questions. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: Have noted the motion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 April 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.

Ryulong: Clerk notes

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

Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted

Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.

Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Support
  1. I believe we can remove this DS from 13 years ago, especially as all the other items from the case are cleared away. Specifically leaving the IBan in place as I generally don't like lifting them without a specific reason and Mythdon has stated they have no problem with it remaining. WormTT(talk) 13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. I think my first choice would have just been to archive this with the clarification above. But I'm willing to do this as a second choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  3. No longer needed to prevent disruption. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  4. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  5. No obvious issues since 2009 when the restrictions were put in place. --Izno (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  6. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  7. Maxim(talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  8. Donald Albury 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. (June 2022)

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Ypatch at 03:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

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 Ypatch

Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping) sanctioned me with a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page. I think Vanamonde is a good admin, and I do take responsibility for my flaws as an editor: I could have tried harder to put myself in the other’s shoes, could have tried harder to debate from a more objective perspective instead of nickpicking fallacies or flaws from counter arguments. I have since taken time off from Iranian politics, and really don’t plan to get involved with debating with anyone again or editing on this topic. I would just like to, from time to time, be able to comment on some talk page discussions. I do know a lot about this subject, and think I could help clarify some points citing the literature I’m familiar with, etc. That is what this request is about.

Copied statement by Vanamonde93

@Barkeep49: Apologies: as RP said, I've been travelling, with infrequent internet and little time. I sanctioned Ypatch essentially for displaying a battleground attitude. Before granting an appeal I would want to see evidence that going forward they will be able to engage constructively with users they disagree with within this contentious area. I haven't the time to evaluate whether that's the case, and am happy to leave that to ARBCOM's discretion. I do apologize for not filing the right forms logging the sanction; I do recognize the need for it. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Sdrqaz

Worm That Turned, appeals at AE and at AN have occurred. As I noted on my talk page in March, my reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § sanctions.appeals is that further consideration is only allowed here, at ARCA. A strict reading of the text seems to imply that Vanamonde93 is unable to lift the sanction even if they wished, given that it has moved beyond the first stage ("ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision"), and, for that matter, the second. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC); struck 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I seem to have misread both Worm's intent and the arbitration policy. I've struck my last sentence, and reading his comment again, it seems like the rest of my statement (which was its thrust) was based on a misreading of intent: I thought that he was advocating for an on-the-merits appeal at AE when one had already occurred. I am reminded why keeping one's mouth shut in these things is, as usual, the best course of action. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 5 June 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.

Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.: Clerk notes

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

Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It has not even been three months since this sanction was levied, and the current convention is to wait at least six months before appealing indefinite topic bans; I am not seeing any compelling reason in the request to overrule or otherwise fast-track this. Primefac (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Primefac. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • What is our precedent about when a sanction has not been logged? Because that's the situation where in here - the sanction was clearly labeled as AE and the editor it applied to clearly understood it, but it wasn't put in the AELOG and I find the policy language confusing on the matter. My guess is that we just fix the missing log and proceed apace in this situation but want to ask that broader question first. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Since both the admin and affected user clearly understood, I'm fine fixing the log and reminding the admin. I'd like to think WP:NOTBURO can apply even to DS enforcement. (If either were party were not clear, however, this would be more than a bureaucratic matter.) -- BDD (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah BDD I think you have this right. I have been holding off further comment awaiting comment from Vandamonde. It looks like they were never formally notified, and the ping from Maxim below might be the first they're hearing of it though also their activity has been light recently. I am leaving them a talk page notice as that might generate some attention a ping did not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    I've been advised that Vanamonde is likely to be unable to reply to this and we should move forward without him. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Sdrqaz: the levying administrator does not lose their right to unilaterally modify a sanction after appeal to AE/AN. When there is an appeal to the committee like this, AE, AN, and the levying administrator may no longer change for six months (or longer if the committee decides) and those bodies may only loosen for "rope" uneasons (there can be no appeals on merits of the original sanction after a committee appeal except by the committee). You have to read the section you linked in conjunction with Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Modifications_by_administrators in particular important note 2. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I do want to note that Vanamonde93's original note did mention three months as a sort of cool-off period (for lack of a better term). In addition, as Ypatch's edits elsewhere seem productive and considerable, and the appeal is not bad, I'm willing to entertain this appeal, that is, not simply dismiss as too early. @Vanamonde93: I'm interested in any thoughts you may have on the appeal. Maxim(talk) 19:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm of the opinion that admins have the discretion to make such calls and absent a good reason, we shouldn't be looking at it. I agree with above that review shouldn't happen in less than 6 months, and I'd rather it was considered at AE, or by the original admin, though I do accept ARCA is a option. WormTT(talk) 09:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Jayron32 at 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

  • There are no involved parties, but this should be sufficient to notify anyone who was involved in the prior discussion.

Statement by Jayron32

There was a recent ANI case that centered around ambiguity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts. After some acrimony, the case was solved sufficiently, so I am not naming any parties for this request for clarification, though any commentary from anyone involved with that discussion would be welcome. One of the tangential issues that came up related to some ambiguity of the DS awareness and alert system regarding the 12-month time limit, especially in regards to notifying users who are not active in the area-of-dispute they are being alerted for. The user in question had done some editing back in January in the area, but had not touched it in the intervening months, and was blindsided by a DS-alert template which confused and confounded them; this led to an argument over the placement of the template, some considerable WP:WIKILAWYERing, and some unnecessary name-calling. Eventually, things calmed down, but not until there had been a lot of drama. I feel like a lot of this could have been avoided if there were some better clarification on the appropriate use of DS-alert templates; specifically when is the use of the template authorized, and more importantly when not. I had mistakenly thought that there was some parameters on when it could be placed, but I can't find anything in the guidance; is it really intended that any user can be notified of, and placed under, DS-alert at any time, regardless of whether or not they are, or have ever been, actively editing in one of the DS-targeted areas? If not, what are the parameters of when it is appropriate to use such an alert? Which is to say, how recently should a person have been editing in the targeted area? The past week? Past month? Past year? Ever? Thanks for your attention to, and clarification of, this issue. --Jayron32 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@nableezy: It actually isn't a non-event. The DS alert system makes it possible to place someone under the more restrictive sanctions authorized by the DS system; as such it is a form of sanction in itself, regardless of wording to the contrary, since if someone is not notified, they cannot be so sanctioned under DS. Telling someone they are being placed under increased scrutiny for their editing is not a neutral act. --Jayron32 14:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@nableezy: And telling people that has the reasonable potential of raising emotions; as such, we need parameters to define when and when not it is appropriate to leave such notices. --Jayron32 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Zero0000: I agree wholeheartedly that if we had a bot system to do so, it would be much preferable. I also agree that people should not be overreacting to having the notice placed on their page, however they clearly do. This is not a personal issue, it is a systems issue, which is to say that no one should be considered to be at fault here. There is a system in place that has problems, and we need changes to the system to fix it. I am not particularly concerned with assigning any blame in the precipitating event that led me to ask for this clarification; I have intentionally not named any party. BOTH of the people involved acted in good faith, but emotions got high and that could have been avoided had the system we are using been better designed. Bot notifications only, or contawise, clearer guidance on parameters for notifying editors, would help so that good faith editors are not encouraged into conflicts in the future. --Jayron32 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: re "Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert, and I've never seen anyone alert someone who hasn't been active at all in the prior year." I have no problem if that is the standard, but if so, the guidance at AC/DS would benefit from such a statement. Without parameters, we have no idea what is and is not appropriate; disagreement due to such ambiguity is a locus for good faith disputes, which can be headed off if we have explicit guidance. I am not particularly privy to other problems with the DS system, I only really started this discussion over a narrowly defined problem. --Jayron32 14:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Thank you for your lengthy explanation. Contrary to your statement that your response doesn't deal with my issue directly, I rather find that it does; while I was only asking for a tweak to the guidance offered at the DS system, a complete system overhaul may accomplish the same as part of its loftier goals. Since there appears to be some drafting and discussions already in the works on doing so, maybe this recent situation will inform thoughtful implementation of the new system with the problems in mind. Thanks again! --Jayron32 16:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

I would prefer that all editors be presumed aware if they meet a requirement (eg 500 edits + 30 days). Send out a notice to the talk page of such editors once they qualify explaining that. Then it is only necessary to deal with relatively new editors and they can be covered with the same notification sent manually (by anyone). Maybe this is too simplistic but the current system is dreadful. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

This is very basic, and yes a whole lot of unnecessary drama. The placing of an informational template, which explicitly disclaims any accusation of wrongdoing, is a non-event. A bot should do it, if you have edited in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions you should be informed of the sanctions, full stop. Calling that harassment, when it is one edit giving a required notification, is asinine and borders on gaslighting when coupled with actually harassing claims and insults. If a user has a history, any history, of activity that would merit a trip to AE, including edit-warring or personal attacks, they should be informed of the sanctions. So that if that occurs in the future it may be reported to AE rather than the circus of ANI. And if you do not want a notification, place the freaking awarness template on your talk page. You can do it in a hidden comment and it won't even display the banner. nableezy - 13:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32, yes being aware means one can be taken to AE and not ANI and be subject to discretionary sanctions. It is still a non-event, the topic area as a whole is already covered by the sanctions. Ensuring that all participants are aware of those rules that already apply to them is not telling someone they are being placed under increased scrutiny for their editing, it is telling them that when they edit in a specific topic area their editing is already placed under increased scrutiny. It is informational, not threatening. That is why the alert says This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. It is specifically tailored to not be anything more than informing a user of sanctions that are already in effect. Yes, if you violate them at that point you may be reported to AE. Ok, and? nableezy - 14:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Jayron32, Im fine with some clarity on if or when an alert should be placed, and I appreciate the way you brought this without blaming anybody, but I also dispute that "raised emotions" is anything close to a reasonable reaction to being informed of sanctions already in place. If you dont want the notification on your talk page, revert it. If you dont want to receive another one, place the awareness. nableezy - 15:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

With due respect to Jayron32, experienced editors are not "blindsided" by receiving DS-alerts. Whether clarifications to the rules are needed, I'm not sure. Perhaps bringing together the disparate bits into one statement would help. However, DS-alerts exist for a good reason and it must not be the case that delivering them is something a good faith editor only undertakes with trepidation. A objective system would be a bot that delivers an alert to any editor who edits a page with a DS template but hasn't received an alert in the past 12 months and doesn't have the DS-aware template. With that system, I will get one every year and that's just fine. Zerotalk 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Having thought about this a little more, I would add "and the relevant arbcom ruling has been changed since the last alert notice" to the criteria for a bot-delivered alert. I don't think that would be a good addition for human-delivered alerts though, as it is an unnecessary burden to check. Zerotalk 06:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

The deep background on this is that the DS awareness system is broken. Sending good vibes to whoever is currently working on the reforms. In the meantime, I don't think the timing issue at hand needs explicit clarification. Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert, and I've never seen anyone alert someone who hasn't been active at all in the prior year.
I have a separate request for clarification related to the same dispute. WP:AWARE's criterion #2 says "They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)", but it's not clear whether a revoked sanction that wasn't appealed fulfills the criterion or not. I doubt there are many sanctions removed without appeal, but there's been at least one, and confusion over the awareness status was a part of this dispute. Can we tweak the criterion to say "and at least one of such sanctions has not been revoked"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I think Jayron32's point in response to me is a good one. Though I think clarification won't reduce out-of-process alerts, it might lead to quicker resolution of conduct disputes. I'm in favor of a change to the documentation at Template:Ds/alert along the lines of:

"Users editing these pages who have edited these pages within the last year may be alerted that discretionary sanctions are in effect."

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Jip Orlando

First of all, thank you to Jayron32 for bringing this here. I closed the ANI thread as the discussion had moved from being productive to having a strong heat>light ratio as an uninvolved editor. For some personal background, I had notified Levivich of a DS alert in 2020 regarding infoboxes here: [15] as I honestly could not tell if he was aware of the drama that had plagued that topic area. He 'thank'ed me for the notification. The next day, an IP editor with no other few other edits posed a DS-aware template on my talk page: [16]. I took no offense but I think it is reasonable to assume, based on my participation in the topic area that I was aware, even without the template. Maybe the template can be softened? It already says, as Nableezy says above, that wrongdoing is not assumed. I intentionally stay away from the hornets' nest that is AMPOL, IPA, PIA, and the other 'alphabet soup' sanction areas. The challenge lies in the wording that an editor must be notified of DS. And I get why- there is extensive precedent that an area has been problematic. These templates, as noted above, are good for new editors that may not be aware of problems. Most established editors who read the dramah areas will be aware without seeing a DS template with the draconian scales of justice on their talk page. Further clarification is necessary and possible investigation needed on the effectiveness of these templates. Maybe encouraging editors to place the DS-aware template on their talkpage to avoid the drama? The current system is impersonal and sometimes insulting, as seen in the ANI thread. Perhaps loosening the yearly awareness criterion and moving to a one-off? Talk page histories are rarely deleted and it is easy to find the diff of when a notification was sent. We could also have a bot do it, which removes the personal grudges and the HAHA, GOTCHA! nature of these notifications, especially when it comes from one established editor to another. In sum, my thoughts are:

  • Change the wording of the DS templates to something softer.
  • Change the yearly awareness criterion to a one-time notification being sufficient.
  • Have a bot do it. I worry though, that this becomes a bit bureaucratic. Notification for notification's sake without understanding the nuances involved.

This is tricky and often a sore spot for editors. Thanks, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th

While the bot idea sounds promising in theory, in practice it is less so. Many of our discretionary sanctions pages are only considered so due to "broadly construed". While a human editor can make the determination as to whether or not a specific article is within the scope of one or more relevant sanctions, that isn't feasible for bot. In order for a bot to function, lists of articles would need to be created and maintained, one for each sanction area, with new articles added as they are created or at some point enter the scope of a sanction, and others being removed as they are deleted or leave the scope of a sanction. While an alternative to a public facing list might be for the bot to scan/read for a ds/talk notice on an article's talk page, not all articles that are within the scope of a sanction have been tagged as such. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

Based on my experience at AE and in DS areas, I think that a one-time notification for a given DS, rather than a yearly notification, seems appropriate for any sanction regime that does not have a built-in sunset date and which has not been amended since the last notification. Now, as I type this, I recognize that cases where the regime has been amended since the last notification could present a thorny edge case, but it would at least have allowed us to dodge this instance of Nableezy v. Levivich. signed, Rosguill talk 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial

I support Rosgull's proposal for "perma-awareness" once an editor is AWARE of a particular DS area: this would seem to remove the major irritants of the current system, which in my view consist of (i) editors becoming annoyed at new templated reminders after a year has passed (although they are unwilling to template themselves as ds-aware, which would avoid this annoyance, for whatever reason), and (ii) editors evading sanctions thanks to expired awareness templates - the scenario that gives rise to the renewed notifications, which in turn gives rise to (i).

It seems to me that the one possible drawback of this proposal - that arising from changes to the scope of DS areas - could be substantially mitigated by some form of automagical notification when the scope of a sanction area changes. This might not be possible, as things stand, in the case of editors who are deemed to be aware, for example, due to their participation in AE discussion on a certain DS topic. That anomaly might be a reason to change the overall awareness procedure slightly, so that editors who are "deemed aware" have to receive the template on their user Talk after their awareness has been noted: they were already aware as of the date and time of their AE participation in the topic area, but the template is used as a marker so that the systems can detect its presence in the user Talk history and generate a notice of the change of the DS topic's scope, should that happen.

It seems to me that whatever small advantage there might actually be in "reminding" editors of DS areas annually is substantially outweighed by the irritants (i) and (ii) I noted above; the existence of the DS-aware template also already nullifies this supposed advantage for a non-trivial population of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

Re "Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert ..." I'd hope that would be a minimal justification since I've recently seen what appears to be an administrator's alert after a single climate-change comment on a talk page (I'll point to the discussion and ping the parties if someone thinks that's dubious). It would enhance if the third sentence was "You have shown interest in [topic] three or more times in the last twelve months." If it's false that doesn't invalidate the alert, but the recipient (per later in the DS/alert message) can query "What edits? Prove it", which makes it more trouble to issue alerts without prior research. The twelve-month expiry is good for the same reason. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

User:Jayron32, as alluded to by Barkeep49, there has been a review of the discretionary sanctions procedures underway since 2021. I hope that the forthcoming proposal will include something like the one-time alert I suggested, explaining how discretionary sanctions work and telling the editor how to find out for themselves if a page is subject to discretionary sanctions. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn

Not seeing a lot wrong with the situation. If you don't want warnings add the temlpate saying you are aware, if you don't want the template and want to edit controversial areas then getting a warning a year is not a major problem. It would be great if there was an automated way to send out these messages as it invariably ends up being someone who is at odds with the editor who places the notice and often this just inflames the situation. Having a bot do it would take away alot of the personilisation. Aircorn (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

Jayron - I saw this after I posted this response at ANI so it is now posted here. It also triggers a filter that states the user is already aware, and advises not to post another. The remedy for these issues has already been passed by ArbCom. Users simply have to take advantage of it. Atsme 💬 📧 14:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion's comment below, re: new users not knowing about DS, or its complexities. Keep in mind that DS affected articles have notice/warning banners in edit view and on the article TP that are pretty hard to miss. If a new user ignores them, I doubt a UTP notice will have much of an effect. I support rewording the template to reflect a more welcoming, educational approach with a link to instructions about adding the perm awareness notice at the top of their UTP, (and allow it to be designed to fit their page as is DS Aware Notice) which triggers the filter showing all DS topic areas. But, notice or not, the subsequent treatment new users can probably expect if they're on the wrong side of WP's systemic bias can be even scarier, or at least discouraging – I've mentored a few. Unfortunately, baiting & bullying tactics tend to incite new users unfamiliar with community norms, and are effectively used to drive opposition from a topic area. While DS/AE makes the latter a tad easier to accomplish, ArbCom should consider focusing more on that behavior along with expressed concerns about WP:POV creep, POV pushers, and first user advantage. We don't always get the unbiased close we expect from an RfC, it happens, but even worse is when those on the wrong side of WP's systemic bias are subjected to disproportionate AE actions, more so when it's done unilaterally. The issues with DS-AE, especially those involving WP:POV creep, continue without an effective remedy, but I remain cautiously optimistic that the current ArbCom will indeed effect much needed improvements. Atsme 💬 📧 12:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

The system of formal DS notices is really, really bad. It encourages hostility and presumptions of bad faith, making conflicts more rancorous rather than encouraging constructive editing. The core problem is that sending someone a formal DS notice is seen as (and, in fact, is) a hostile act. To a new editor, it is a big scary notice, no matter how carefully it says that it doesn't imply wrongdoing. Even to an editor who understands the underlying system, it is often a blunt statement that the person posting it believes that bringing the target to AE will eventually be necessary. Nor do they actually convey anything helpful - a new user will not know our default standards and therefore will have no context for how AE topic areas alter them; an experienced user should have at least a general sense that touchy areas are handled more strictly. And when taking someone to AE is necessary it sometimes leads to people who were obviously aware of what they were doing wrong and the high-scrutiny nature of the articles they were editing getting off on a technicality.

Nothing about it works the way it should. And it is totally, completely unnecessary - should editors get some degree of warning? Sure, but we manage WP:3RR (which generally requires some degree of warning or awareness) just fine without a formal system; administrators are very capable of judging for themselves whether someone was given adequate notice. The prerequisite to bringing anyone anywhere, including AE, is to make some effort to talk it out first; the templates are not a substitute for that. The requirement should be removed, and the relevant templates should be deleted and salted against recreation. They're terrible things that are causing serious damage to no benefit whatsoever.

Regarding the suggestion above that people can opt-out of the templates - that is no use at all to new users (for whom a scary template, usually delivered by someone they are in the middle of a hot dispute with, is going to be the most harmful.) And it does not answer the underlying problem that the templates serve no useful purpose; we manage just fine without such a formal system everywhere else. They were devised years ago when AE was a rare exception, by experienced editors who didn't want to trip over this new set of rules. None of that applies anymore - AE is a longestanding well-established part of our existing rules and should be treated the same way, not with these hostile WP:BITE-y messages. --Aquillion (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I'm briefly commenting here because Barkeep49 mentioned me below.

The discretionary sanctions system started to evolve the year before I first joined ArbCom (2008). As noted, I pointed out many times then and thereafter that because topic-areas under DS were subject to different rules from other topic-areas, and some pages in those topic-areas were subject to more specific rules still, it would be unfair to sanction editors for violating rules that they were unaware of. In other words, if an editor was reported to AE or otherwise chided about a DS violation, and credibly responded along the lines of "I never heard of the rule you're telling me I just violated," the proper response would be educational, at most a warning rather than a block—especially where the challenged edits would have been permissible if made in non-DS areas.

"If there's doubt about awareness, warn first" was intended as a principle of fairness rooted in common sense. It has now, however, morphed into what an arbitrator once called "our body of 'awareness law'", and the complexity of the rule-set has long since reached the point of self-parody. The whole superstructure should probably be done away with, and replaced with the simpler original principle that if an editor credibly claims for the first time that he or she was unaware of a given restriction, the appropriate initial response is a notification rather than a sanction. This should cause few problems, because after being advised, the editor will necessary either (1) violate the DS rules again, in which case action could then be taken, or (2) not violate the DS rules again, in which case the problem is solved.

The overcomplexity of the DS regime is an example of a broader Wikipedia/Wikimedia-wide problem. That problem is well-discussed in this article from a few years ago. As it happens, the article was written by a current member of the WMF Board of Trustees, which as was recently discussed on a mailing list, is suffering from some governance-process hypertrophy of its own—thereby helping to illustrate how pervasive and intractable this movement-wide type of dysfunction seems to be.

On the specifics of DS awareness, I am sure I am overlooking some fine points: I have admittedly become somewhat jaded after participating in these discussions for 15 years. My ex-colleagues and successors have my best wishes for cleaning up the mess, one which I'm sure I played some part in helping to create. In the meantime, the system should be administered with as much common sense as English Wikipedia is capable of ... which I realize, in my old wiki-age, is not always as much as it ought to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Tewdar

The article you just edited is in a controversial topic area, and I didn't think much of your contributions, so I'm leaving this templated message on your talk page so that I can get you banned if you do it again. All the best!  Tewdar  09:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

Discretionary sanctions are not enforced uniformly, so naturally there will also be a sense of unfairness or injustice regardless if it's a notice given or an enforcement request result. In many cases of placing a notice, it's because an editor saw another editor made an edit they didn't like. The system needs a major overhaul.

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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have thoughts and admittedly they're going to address what I think should be rather than strictly what is now because I think we need to be making changes here. The next person familiar with awareness (even at a cursory level) who thinks our current rules are working will be the first I know of. Beyond that, this appeal also deals with the reality that our alert templates don't feel good to receive, regardless of what may be the bolded text may say. In the DS reform that L235 and I drafted last year we attempted to deal with both of these issues.
    For AWARENESS, what I believe should happen is that the current AWARENESS criteria be replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert in a topic area. Often what's happening with DS is that the rules being broken are not special rules of DS but broader Wikipedia rules that are being enforced more rigorously (both in what it takes for there to be a sanction and how stringent the sanction is). So it's fair, as Newyorkbrad has eloquently pointed out on more than one occasion, to make sure editors know this system exists before they're subjected to it. But if we're saying some version of "DS are Wikipedia rules, just more so", and I believe we should be saying that, I also don't think we need to twist ourselves into knots about a person being aware beforehand. They shouldn't have been doing what they were doing in the first place before getting a DS sanction. There's a reason that things like 1RR are expected to be accompanied by things like page notices but also editors shouldn't be edit warring and having a different brightline (1 vs 3) doesn't change that core expectation, to pick one example. By explicitly noting that lack of AWARENESS is appealable we also provide a safeguard. This is especially true because I support lowering the level of consensus required for a successful appeal from "clear and substantial consensus" to "clear consensus" and in providing clear standards of review for appeals.
    If we're going to presume AWARENESS we do need to make sure that the alerts we're giving work. So I believe there should be new template language, including standardized section headers and that only an UNINVOLVED editor or administrator may place an alert. There is a tension between scaring off editors and getting them pay attention to a template. I believe the name DS itself should change to be more informative and hopefully less scary and confusing. To further help, I believe we should use a two-template solution. A template the editor gets when they first start editing DS (in any topic), and get their first alert, should be an introduction which truly explains DS. It should have pre-designated section headings rather than whatever name an particular editor decides. They would then get a shorter alert when they first start editing other DS areas reminding them that DS exists and that this new area is also covered by the DS rules. Beyond that there should be some recognition that the alert is always going to feel somewhat like a rebuke, hence the change to only allow subsequent alerts to be placed by an UNINVOLVED editor and by providing a place that editors getting an alert may ask questions of 3rd parties instead of just the person who placed the template.
    There are a lot more details that go with all this and some more explanations that go with all this. I hope that the current DS drafters, L235, Captain Eek, and Wugapodes, will choose to bring forward something close to what I've outlined above as I think it's responsive to what we heard from a number of editors during our DS consultation. I will again acknowledge that I don't really address what Jayron is asking here because I think providing those answers for a system that needs change is less productive than just doing the changes that should happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • We do need to acknowledge that Wikipedia of 2008 when DS was introduced was a different world to today, and has gone through a lot of evolution over that period. I think that the principle that someone should not be sanctioned for something they credibly didn't realise was wrong is a good one, and should be brought forward. However, I do agree that the monolith of DS AWARENESS is overkill in its bureaucracy and complexity. We're in the process of DS reform, and I hope that this will be taken into account. However, I'm not sure that anything needs to be done here, and now, more than letting this ARCA help influence the ongoing reform. WormTT(talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I concur with the views of my two colleagues above. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your thoughts. I think this can be closed pending the broader reform, and will ask the clerks to do so unless another arb objects. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Tea Party movement

Original discussion

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

Initiated by Mhawk10 at 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Enforcement_of_discretionary_sanctions


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


Information about amendment request
  • My request is that a motion be made to strike the clause.


Statement by Mhawk10

The current clause states should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy. There do not appear to be any active discretionary sanctions in this area based upon the arbitration enforcement logs (2013, 2014, 2015). Since the discretionary sanctions have been superseded by WP:AP2, and decision sanctions are distinguished from discretionary sanctions by the text of the case, this is a zombie clause that's still in force but can never be used. A motion to strike this zombie clause would help to complete the clean-up from when this got merged with AP2. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 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.

Tea Party movement: Clerk notes

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

Tea Party movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_122&oldid=1097975651"