Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 129

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Clarification and Amendment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 10 October 2024 (archiving Special:Permalink/1250472825#Amendment request: PIA Canvassing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 125←Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132


Original discussion
PROD and contesting proposed deletions are covered by the topic ban. Merge discussions are not deletion discussions, but 7&6=thirteen and TenPoundHammer should tread lightly to make sure that they are not continuing behaviors that lead to their topic bans from deletion discussions. {{Notability}} tags are similar to merge discussions. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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 Cunard at 05:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Cunard

I request clarification on these two remedies:

  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#7&6=thirteen topic banned
    • "7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter."
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)
    • "TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter."

The two topic bans say the editors are "topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed".

Does this topic ban include:

  1. initiating or participating in merge discussions
  2. proposing an article for deletion or contesting a proposed deletion
  3. adding {{Notability}} tags to articles

In this Amendment request, the Arbitration Committee did not consider turning an article into a redirect to be a violation of the topic ban. I did not think any of these actions would have violated the ban. But now I am not certain.

I created this clarification request after reading this ANI discussion, where editors found that 7&6=thirteen's contributions to a merge discussion violated the topic ban.

TenPoundHammer has started proposed merges including 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 5 and added the {{Notability}} tag to a number of articles including 1, 2, and 3.

I would like the Arbitration Committee to clarify which actions are allowed under the topic ban. Thank you.

Statement by User:7&6=thirteen

I acknowledge that I am aware of this discussion. I am aware of the topic ban from DELETION discussions entered a long time ago (2 years+), and have been in full avoidance and compliance. I admit that I edited a request to MERGE from and about an article that I had extensively edited into another geographically-relate article. At the time, I did not believe that the topic ban included a merger request. I was not "testing the boundaries", and had not done anything like that, abiding in good faith for the last two years. I posted things on that article talk page. There I made a mistake concerning the attribution of a needless irrelevant personal attack that had been made on that page. I corrected that (struck it out and inserted the actual quote by a different editor) and apologized. I made a mistake, and I undertook striking out the comment and also publicizing my apology. Details and an explanation of that are on my talk page, and I will not repeat them here. I had no intent to violate the TOPIC BAN on DELETION discussions; I recognize that there are those who allege that MERGE discussions are now included. While I disagree, I will simply implement that counsel in the future.
Indeed, I have given up entirely editing of DELETION discussions, and will now avoid all MERGE discussions in the future. You don't need to clarify or change the rule on my account.
However, extending this TOPIC BAN for a new and additional period is not justified or needed. It is unwarranted and unnecessarily punitive; and is not reflective or proportionate of my conduct or intent. A new finding will unfairly suggest that I did something wrong meriting a new set of sanctions, and would prejudice any future request to remove the three 2-year-old topic bans (WP:DELETION DISCUSSIONS, WP:ARS, and WP:DYK, for a year, but which apparently are self renewing and perpetual). I've followed all of them. Asking for them to be removed is not something in my contemplation at this time.
Nevertheless, I will implement my promise indefinitely, irrespective of any 'clarification' or not. I do not need the hassle. The point has been made, understood and put into practice.
For what it's worth, I have never initiated a MERGER proposal in 16 years of editing. Nor have I ever added Notability tags to articles. This has nothing to do with me or anything I did. I does not pertain to me and those accusations are irrelevant; you are being asked to fix something that ain't broke and didn't happen.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, I note it was SerialNumber54129 (who is implicated here) who posted the irrelevant personal argumentum ad hominem that I called out at the merger discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile, they struck my comments on that talk page, and annotated that they should be disregarded, because I had been "topic banned" from DELETION discussions ["7&6=thirteen is indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed."] So if there are those who need guidance, it's not me. They did not like my content, and are putting their 'thumbs on the scale.'
Related discussion so the record is clear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • [Reply to Guerillero] Sorry to see you have "profound disappointment." But I was within the prior rule as this was not a DELETION discussion, and so far as I recall I had not even ventured into any other MERGER discussion in 2+ years. This was once; and only came up because I had edited this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TenPoundHammer

Personally, I think this is being blown out of proportion again. I have not suggested that anything be sent to AFD after the last go-round, where I was warned not to do that again. It's clear how "should this be taken to AFD?" can be seen as me trying to skirt the topic ban. The below-cited Weird Al examples were on August 13, and the formal notification was not until the 26th, after which I have not done anything like that again.

I was also topic-banned from WP:BLAR. I have performed a couple merges since then, but these have been good-faith attempts to make sure at least some of the content makes it into the target article (e.g., List of Nitty Gritty Dirt Band members) after a clear consensus had been made to do so by other editors. If this is indeed too adjacent to my BLAR and/or XFD topic-bans for comfort, then I will cease doing it again until the topic ban is lifted (and not try to convince other editors to do it for me).

I don't see anything wrong with placing the {{notability}} tag, as I am not using it for anything other than its intended purpose. Whatever happens to the article after I tag it is entirely in the hands of other editors, and as stated above, I am no longer trying to persuade others to send content to XFD. I have noticed that a couple articles I tagged did get redirected or AFD'd by others, but in none of these cases did I make a suggestion of doing so.

I have not prodded any articles since the topic ban, since I assumed doing so would constitute a violation of the topic ban. I have deprodded a few articles without incident, and a prior inquiry as to whether this violated my topic ban had gone unanswered. I personally do not think de-prodding should be part of my topic ban.

tl;dr: Just like the last time I got brought here, I feel this is much ado about nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by INVOLVED Seriality

Quote:

Yes, I think I agree. It's because "deletion" has a pretty strict meaning on Wikipedia. A topic ban narrowly construed would, by implication, be a ban from that process specifically. But the fact that it is deliberately broader—i.e. more comprehensive—suggests that a less strict definition should be applied. And as GoDG argues, a border interpretation of deletion is anything that removes a page from the reader's eye, as merging, redirecting and incubating do (although it's only the process that 13 is TB from; a restriction on editing the articles themselves would hopefully be too broad an interpretation). SerialNumber54129 17:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

SerialNumber54129 13:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @7&6=13: I know I am "implicated". That's why I upper-cased "involved" in my section header *facepalm*
  • @Primefac. I don't think anyone is actually saying that merge discussions are deletion discussions; it's more nuanced than that (to be fair, is AE really set up for nuance?). Rather, that, in your metaphor, it's not whether content should be deleted, but whether it should live in the reader's eye or out of their sight. A merge is not a deletion, but that is not to say it doesn't appear that different to the WP:READER, who, whatever we dress the discussion up as, will not be able to see material they once could. SerialNumber54129 18:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: As you said on a previous committee, 'banned means baned', absolutely in line with WP:TBAN:

A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

Your current remarks seem incompatible with policy. Indeed uou would seem to be allowing editing through a topic ban depending on who makes them and/or the nature of the edits. This is a seismic shift in policy. Apologies if I've misunderstood any subtext. SerialNumber54129 10:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by GhostOfDanGurney

I felt that thirteen's posts were a clear-cut violation of a "broadly construed" TBan from deletion discussions, since that discussion was on whether or not Bent's Camp Resort should or shouldn't be merged into Mamie Lake (Wisconsin), therefore potentially resulting in the content of Bent's Camp Resort being BLAR'd (noting that the section for BLAR contains a "see also" hatnote linking to the deletion policy's section on redirections).

Given that the discussion was at Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) and not Talk:Bent's Camp Resort, I do think there's just enough ambiguity here that I didn't call for sanctions at ANI nor did I go to AE. At the time I felt striking the offending comments and a "don't do that again" were sufficient. However, @Tamzin: gave them an "only warning" in March 2023, specifically referencing this same "broadly construed" language, so I'm now not sure that "don't do that again" hasn't already been said. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding TPH (which I was unaware of their recent merge proposals before), this given example at Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic in which they say "Either merge it or AFD it." should similarly be seen as a clear-cut, possibly egregious violation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

I don't have a horse in this race, but generally I'd say that if somebody's TBan says "broadly construed", they shouldn't test its boundaries. It is generally a bad idea whether it is broadly construed or not, because they already have drawn attention from admins, but particularly so with this warning. Trying to wikilawyer your way through your TBan is pure FAFO behaviour, and they shouldn't be upset if the admins start cracking down. The answer to your questions IMHO is pretty obvious:

  1. Yes, because merging will lead to at least some deletion of content - the nominated article may get deleted, some content during merger may be lost, and so on.
  2. Yes, because it is participation in said discussions, whether contesting PRODs or nominating for deletion.
  3. Not necessarily, as tagging by itself does not automatically lead to deletion discussions and in fact articles may sometimes stay with notability tags for years without getting deleted. Adding a problem tag is not in general participating in deletion discussions. They can tell on the talkpage what they believe is wrong with the article. But urging people to go towards a deletion discussion, or anything that would touch it, is something they should avoid as part of their sanctions. Again, they would be better off if instead of tagging, they actually found the sources, or told others they couldn't find any at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Replying to Flatscan - merge discussions are processed in the same venue as deletion discussions. So there potentially is a chance that what is a merge discussion may soon turn out to have consensus in favour of deletion. You didn't intend to delete, but you did get involved in a deletion discussion after all because the final result was delete. And yes, the nom has no control over how the discussion goes. Blocking for violating TBan in this case would be unfair, but you will definitely find people who will assert he violated his TBan regardless. It doesn't matter if mergers/blanking-and-redirecting are not technically deletions. The matter is, that discussion may yield a delete result.
Because if that interpretation is correct, then basically the editor can spam AfDs with "merge" or "redirect" instead of "delete" and get away scot free because "I cannot predict if the article is gonna be deleted, I just respect the boundaries not to argue for deletion"
This is why in my playbook "broadly construed" means "imagine any possible scenario in which an admin may potentially block you, even if they are not totally right, and stay away from it".
That said, I agree with NYB below that we should punish participation per se but only if it continues to be disruptive. If it is not disruptive but still a violation of TBan, then a warning should be enough, and a recommendation to do something else and just wait until the TBan expires. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Flatscan

The omission of PROD was mentioned by arbitrators at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1), but it was not added explicitly.

Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, your statement that merge discussions are processed in the same venue as deletion discussions is not accurate in this case and many others. As recommended by WP:Merging#Proposing a merge (information page) and WP:Proposed article mergers (process page), Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal is not an AfD. Neither of the restricted users edited WP:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. Participating in any AfD would be an unambiguous violation of their topic bans, contrary to your hypothetical reasoning that would allow the editor [to] spam AfDs. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I realize that the scope of a topic-ban can be viewed independently of any specific edits that might or might not violate it. Nonetheless, it might be relevant to ask whether there have been any actual problems with the affected editors' participation in the disputed types of discussions, other than the mere fact of their doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I seem not to have been completely clear in my earlier comment. My point was not that editors should be free to ignore topic-bans if they are making (what they perceive as) beneficial edits. It is that the scope of a topic-ban in the first place should be keyed to the scope of the problem it is intended to solve. If an editor edits unhelpfully about topic X but productively about adjacent topic Y, then in a doubtful case and all other things being equal, one might not want to construe a topic-ban on X to include Y. Of course, where the applicability of the topic ban is clear then it must be observed, unless and until it is modified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Izno

When I made my votes on the relevant remedies, I did not consider merging processes. If I had been asked then, I probably would have said those would merit voting on separate or amended remedies, as our processes for merging are separate from those for deletion, and never require the use of the Delete button that admins get. ArbCom may do with that as they will. :) Izno (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Merge discussions are not deletion discussions; they are discussions of where content should live, not if content should stay. I am somewhat on the fence about {{notability}} tags, as it is a maintenance tag and not necessarily a discussion (though potentially the start of a discussion); I am willing to be persuaded in either direction. PROD would definitely fall under the "broadly construed" of deletion discussions, though. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
    @SN, that is fair, I suppose my thinking is that merges are far enough removed from deletion (even though some content may be left out of the final product) that they would not fall under the "broadly construed" umbrella. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I'll tackle these in the order presented:
    1. Yes initiating or participating in merge discussions: This rides the line, but I come out as a "yes this is in scope." A merge discussion has many of the same hallmarks that a deletion discussion does. A merge discussion may also result in the practical deletion of an article, because redirected content is not always worth saving. The broad scope of the restriction favors including otherwise borderline topics.
    2. Yesproposing an article for deletion or contesting a proposed deletion: Clearly within scope for me. A ban from deletion wouldn't be very effective if someone could sidestep it by prodding articles.
    3. No adding Notability tags to articles: I don't see this as an issue. While I have personal beliefs about tag bloat, and think they should be used more sparingly than we do, placing a tag is not a deletion or a discussion. While it might eventually prompt someone else to AfD the article, I see such a link as truly too tenuous to be in scope.
  • At any rate, I wouldn't punish 7&6 or TPH for having been in merge discussions up to this point, since I do think it was arguable as to whether merges are in scope. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that merge discussions are outside of the bounds of the topic ban, I would like to register my profound disappointment that both 7&6 and TPH seem to be unable to stop touching the general area of the notability of topics. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:32, 11 September 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.

Amendment request: PIA Canvassing

Original discussion
Request withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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 Dovidroth at 07:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 § Dovidroth topic ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • I am appealing my topic ban

Statement by Dovidroth

In the period since I have been topic banned, I have thought seriously about the proxying that I performed on behalf of a banned user. I apologize for performing these edits, and I will take proper precautions to avoid encountering such issues in the future. Furthermore, I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it.

Since being unblocked at the end of April, I have continued to contribute in other topics, including creating a new article (Rabbinic period) which was featured as a DYK and for which received a barnstar from another user. I also received a "nice work" comment from another user for work that I did on another page.

More than eight months have passed since the closure of the Arbcom case, and in practice I have been topic banned for nine months because of a previous topic ban. I would appreciate another shot at ARBPIA, and hope that Arbcom will consider my case favorably.

After taking more time to consider my appeal, I have reached the conclusion that it is not time yet, and I apologize for submitting it prematurely. I request that the arbitrators close it at this time. I will continue to contribute positively in other areas, and I hope to appeal again in a few months. Dovidroth (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Eladkarmel

Dovid is a user who contributes greatly to Wikipedia and to the development of global knowledge. I think a long time has passed during which he hasn't stopped working on Wikipedia. I recommend also looking at the seriousness of his edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia (6,379 edits) and on Wikidata (12,866 edits!). Despite the incident for which he was blocked, I believe that today he can contribute greatly with his Wikipedia abilities even on this complex topic.Eladkarmel (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath (2)

Statistics for Dovidroth shows that they have made a total of 190 edits (as at the time of this comment) since their unblock. I don't see that this sample is sufficiently large to demonstrate that they would likely be a net positive if they were allowed to edit the WP:ARBPIA topic area again. TarnishedPathtalk 10:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint (2)

Earlier this year Dovidroth said regarding this, bolding by me, I have received multiple canvassing emails through the Wikipedia private emails system, which I ignored, and I have not acted upon them or responded in any manner. […] The unfolding of events gives me reason to believe that this situation might be part of an orchestrated campaign to smear pro-Israel editors. Now, Dovidroth admits the proxying that I performed on behalf of a banned user and I should have been more forthcoming about what happened when asked about it. I'm afraid that Dovidroth's past actions and statements have abused the trust of the community. How can we trust that Dovidroth will be any more forthcoming in the future regarding this topic? starship.paint (RUN) 11:38, 2 October 2024 (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.

PIA Canvassing: Clerk notes

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

PIA Canvassing: 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_129&oldid=1250474254"