Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 128

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

→

Archive 132

Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions

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 EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by EggRoll97

Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice, and the contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.

Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.

ToBeFree Based on your statement, would I be correct in assuming there would be no problem (procedurally-wise?), if, for example, I went through the list of pages logged as "indef ECP" or similar in the enforcement log, and added topic-specific editnotices to them? While I've seen some commentary below about the efficacy of these editnotices, I personally find it helpful to have these types of editnotices present on pages just for the purposes of having a big banner to tell me a certain page is applicable to CTOP. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.

Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (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.

Contentious topics restrictions: Clerk notes

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

Contentious topics restrictions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• My read of the procedures is that edit notices are not required when an entire topic area is under a particular restriction (e.g. 1RR) or if an individual administrator changes the protection level under the CT procedures. They are required id an individual administrator places a page restriction (other than protection) on an individual page. The key phrasing is, for me, An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.(formatting removed). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• The main purpose of these edit notices, to me, is informing users about a restriction so they can adhere to it. This is not needed for page protection; MediaWiki both displays details about the protection and prevents restriction violations at the same time. The protection text already contains the needed information (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging). All users automatically adhere to page protections, which is probably why Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices explicitly exempts them from the editnotice requirement.
  Topic-wide restrictions such as the extended-confirmed restriction can be enforced with blocks as long as a user is (formally) aware of the restriction; edit notices are not required for the imposition or enforcement of topic-wide restrictions. A user restricted from editing about weather must not edit about weather, and they may be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do so even if the affected pages didn't display a huge "this is a weather-related page" edit notice above them.
  This makes the actual question less relevant than EggRoll97 may have thought, but the answer is that {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, which explains topic-wide restrictions, may be added by anyone technically able to do so, and {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is for use by administrators who impose a different page restriction than page protection. It will rarely be missing where it is actually required, but it if is actually clearly missing somewhere, I'd recommend simply asking the enforcing administrator to fix the issue. The existence of a page restriction (other than page protection) begins with the creation of the edit notice to my understanding, so failing to place the edit notice doesn't do the action incorrectly, it simply fails to take action at all. This is why, to me, page restrictions other than page protection can't be "fixed" by anyone else. They simply don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  EggRoll97, I think adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}} as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to XYZ would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.
  Adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}} as an edit notice to pages related to XYZ closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.
  There's an exception though: I wouldn't add {{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}} to BLPs, as being in Category:Living people already causes {{BLP editnotice}} to appear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think this can be closed as answered. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• To answer whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, yes; adding an edit notice where one is missing is something anyone (with the correct permissions) is able to do. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (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: Desysoppings

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 HouseBlaster at 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Actions by parties to a proceeding and various cases desysopping people

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

• HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by HouseBlaster

Simple question: are admins who were desysopped by the committee or who resigned while a party to a case eligible to regain the tools by standing at Wikipedia:Administrator elections? I think the answer is yes, and I am even more certain the answer ought to be yes.

I am bringing this up now – and I am deliberately not naming any individual cases – because it is already going to be a drama-fest when a former admin runs to regain the tools and the ArbCom case in question is brought to the forefront. The last thing we need at that point in time is uncertainty regarding whether any particular ex-admin is even eligible for AELECT and then the inevitable ARCA specific to that case attracting yet more drama. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It is described as an alternative to the Requests for Adminship process at WP:ADE, and the rest of the lead describes how it is distinct from RfA. My understanding is that ADE is another way to request adminship, but it is not a big-r Request for Adminship (even though the WP:Requests for adminship page is not capitalized, it is capitalized at WP:ADE and I think that is a good way of communicating the difference). Thinking out loud, perhaps a motion adding something to WP:ARBPRO stating that unless specified otherwise, "requests for adminship" refers to any method of requesting adminship, including a traditional RfA or a successful candidacy at WP:ADE. (And that this applies retroactively.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

I mean, the community approved a trial, it's on track to be run in October, and the plan is to "run the election as written" with no further RfCs. It seems the community has finalized its plans around elections as much as it's going to, and while it's pretty unlikely that anyone off of WP:FORCAUSE is going to run in October, I think HouseBlaster is right that giving some sort of guidance now could forestall a lot of drama. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

In my view, the request for adminship process will have two routes for a trial period: the open voting method, and the secret ballot method. Thus the arbitration committee procedure in question covers both routes. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Just Step Sideways

This is an interesting question. My concern would be the fact that discussion goes on before voting starts and is basically forbidden once voting opens. A candidate could give evasive or incomplete answers to questions for three days, or give no answers until just before voting opens, and that's it. I think there is a small but real risk that this could become a back door for previously problematic admins to slip through. I think the safest road would probably be to consider both options going forward, but to leave previous decisions worded as is. There was no expectation at the time these previous decisions were made that there would be any other path to adminship, it doesn't exactly seem fair to the community to basically retroactively give these users a second path. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens (resysoping)

There is a small pool of former administrators who remain with the project yet are ineligible to request the tools back at BN; I speak as one of them. Pondering this candidate process, I can think of three separate reasons why the proposed process might actually be ideal for such ex-admins:

1) The records of what the ex-admin did well or badly as an admin aren't hard to find, so the impact of a shorter question/response period will likely be negligible.

2) Voting anonymity gives those who interact cordially with such ex-admins the ability to vote against them having the tools back without offending the ex-admin who continues to contribute to the project.

3) Voting anonymity gives those who have previously tangled with the ex-admins the freedom to vote for them having the tools back without the potential to lose face doing so.

Thus, I recommend ArbCom accept the pilot process as fully equivalent to RfA for ex-admins who are not eligible to request the tools back via BN. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2024 (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.

Desysoppings: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse, obviously. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Desysoppings: Arbitrator views and discussion

• When I've been asked about this privately my answer is that once the community adopts this formally, we can see if the motions need to be updated. If Admin Elections are considered a way to RfA the standard langauge will work. If it's considered some new way, we can pass a motion to retroactively add it as an option. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster WP:ADE is at the moment a work in process. Who knows what it says or what RfA will say by the time it's adopted. If the community decides the current process and elections are two paths of the same process, sort of like how you can appeal at AN or AE for CT sanctions, then I don't think we need to do anything. And if the community decides they're different then we act. But I think we should be taking our cues from the community and there is no need for us to act until the community finalized its plans around elections. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like there will be a consensus to change things for the trial. However, if someone was desyopped and wants to run, I urge them to make a specific request even if we're not going to make any comprehensive change. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, agree with Barkeep. Or we could add something like “or equivalent process” after mention of RfA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Also agree with Barkeep. If the community establishes a new process to become an admin, editors who are desysoped can also use that process to request/apply for the tools. Requests to update documents can happen if/when those processes are put in place. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Having run at one RfA and at two elections, I'm not a fan of the elections (a lot more uncertainty-induced stress). Putting that aside, this question was asked at Conflict of interest management and the answer is "yes": the point is that they cannot just ask at WP:BN. I'm fine with amending the procedures now, given that this is in front of us now and given Extraordinary Writ's comments. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not so gung-ho on letting desysopped admins run until after the test run. If the test run goes fine and dandy, I think the answer is an obvious yes. But if the test run is a failure/the community decides it is not going to adopt the election process after all, that raises some complex issues about legitimacy which would be further complicated by a previously desysopped admin. I'm not certain I understand how the test run will work, so if I'm wrong about the mechanics, please correct me :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• To me, any of the committee's references to RfA includes admin elections and includes any trials of the new process, unless the message separately mentions admin elections too. I also don't really see a legitimacy problem specific to desysopped admins in case of a trial failure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think this is an example of something falling under "hard cases make bad law". The intention of "may regain tools only through a new RfA" is less to require RfA specifically, but to prohibit asking a bureaucrat for summary restoration. That said, it probably would be cleaner that no former admins with cloudy circumstances in the first election, until we have a sense of how administrator elections work in practice (which would remove an hard or edge case situation). Yet, I don't feel nearly strongly enough about to consider formally making a rule about it; if anything, a sort of a gentlemen's agreement would be more appropriate. Maxim (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• This feels like putting the horse a country mile before the cart. I would rather we return to this discussion if the community does this as more than a once off --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I do not see a need to change the wording. The text says ..submit a new request for adminship, not ...submit a new Request for Adminship, and one can thus argue per the rationale at WP:SMALLDETAILS (and the spirit of the motion) that "putting my name down for an administrator election" is considered a "request for adminship". Primefac (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• This is one where I do have strong feelings. I would strongly support a motion clarifying that admin elections are open to desysopped admins if such a motion were proposed. The purpose of RfA and any alternatives is to determine whether an editor has a mandate from the community to be an administrator. I agree it would be cleaner if the first few candidates through the trial process were free of any baggage but in principle I would welcome a candidacy from a desysopped admin; I'm certain there are ex-admins with chequered histories who could be valuable assets. I don't think we need a motion but we can always revisit it if or when one of these ex-admins runs and succeeds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• I concur with HJ. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• If the community decides that this process should proceed and is a valid way for the community to determine whether or not they believe a candidate who is requesting adminship should receive the administrative tools, then that meets what I believe is the intent of the submit a new request for adminship wording of the relevant procedure. If this becomes an established method of requesting adminship then that wording can be clarified as needed, but I'm not certain that needs to be done yet. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2024 (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.