Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:ECR as a side step to WP:CSD[edit]

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JoaquimCebuano/sandbox, it looks very much like ArbCom, or it’s servants, overreach the authority of ArbCom in undermining the authority of WP:CSD. In this case, the deletion does not even meet the wording of G5, but the deleting admin believes it is OK per derived authority from ArbCom. ArbCom has no business in authorising new avenues for arbitrary deletion not coded into WP:CSD. If someone is breaking their partial topic ban, then the proper avenue is warnings through to blocking, after which G5 can then be applied. If a new page needs deletion, use AfD. If such AfDs result in SNOW deletion, then they may make a case for expanding CSD, noting WP:NEWCSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noting that using G5 for these deletions is pretty common, as it captures the spirit of the deletion. Someone wasn't allowed to create the page, but they did create the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are fully aware of this recently-closed discussion which did not align with the views you are espousing. ArbCom is not another parent. Izno (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will also note the follow-up discussion at WT:CSD#Post RfC discussion where nobody has done the work to actually intregrate such deletions into the speedy deletion policy, so despite the outcome of that discussion being (very wrongly imo) that such deletions should be allowed they are still contrary to the speedy deletion policy and they will remain so until someone actually manages to come up with a wording that meets the WP:NEWCSD requirements and gains consensus to amend the policy. As I do not believe such a wording is possible, I will not be doing this myself. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Puzzlingly, your particular NEWCSD requirement also was absent from the summary. Wonder why. :)
As for consensus, the consensus is already established in that discussion, and whether it's option 2 or 3 is a separate consensus that can be arrived at (that indeed, no-one has worked to add). Izno (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether option 2 or option 3 is the one arrived it, it needs to be compatible with NEWCSD - because every new or changed criterion needs to be compatible with NEWCSD (unless you get consensus to change NEWCSD of course, which nobody has attempted). I can't explain why it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the closing summary, but then neither can I explain why the consensus wasn't that such deletions should not be allowed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I don't understand something: if a whole topic area is covered by ECR, are these things really prohibited? - a new user drafting a change to an article in their sandbox, a new user experimenting with wikimarkup using sentences related to the ECR topic area, drafting articles related to the topic in their userspace, etc.? I certainly hope not. We should want people to do their experimenting with difficult subjects in their userspace. My hope is that "talk is the only namespace excluded" is one of those "letter of the rule but not the spirit" interpretations we can resolve without too much difficulty. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem isn't that they did it in their sandbox. The problem is that they did it in article space, before they acquired EC. They then gamed the system for about 6 hours to acquire the number of edits they needed to gain EC. I then removed their EC. The article is in their sandbox only because it was emailed to them after their WP:RFU request was denied. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So someone did something in the wrong place, got told where the right place is, and is now doing it in the right place. Why do we now want to stop them doing it in the right place now they know where that is? Not that I can see any justification for refusing the REFUND request in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I was probably wrong to deny the refund. But the article's initial deletion is I think what's at issue here. I was just attempting to correct Rhododendrites' facts. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because developing an article on user space is prohibited by ECR. It also opens the question of "can an editor who has only edited ECR material in their userspace start editing the articles at 500 edits?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because developing an article on user space is prohibited by ECR Why? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you asking the reason, or are you asking for the arb ruling? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish per WP:ECR a new user is explicitly allowed to suggest edits on the talk page of an article. So how I understand what Rhododendrites means is: it is very reasonable to also allow per WP:ECR to prepare such suggestions in a user space sandbox.
I believe that if it is not obvious that this is implicitly allowed, then it should be made explicit by amending WP:ECR. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is explicit. There is a single exemption for use of the talk space for edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be made explicit that editors are allowed to prepare edit requests. If the request is to fix a typo, you can't can just post on the talk page straight away. In more complicated cases you may need to spend a few edits getting the markup correct (especially as visual editor is not available on a talk page), or even just testing to make sure your idea will actually be an improvement before requesting it. All of this is clearly within the spirit of ECR and so should be within the letter too. Any editor gaming this should be dealt with as a behavioural problem as we would deal with an editor gaming edit requests, or anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinko corrected, cheers for the headsup andrybak. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed that's an excellent question. The 6 months plus 500 edits requirement is a low bar and doesn't have anything along the lines of understanding what EC is granting the user. I don't know if it is something that could be coded, but I'd support a strengthening the requirement along the lines of "6 months after making 500 unreverted article space edits". (Note this changes both what kind of edits, where the edits are made, and starts a timer at the point the 500th edit is made, instead of starting the timer at account creation.) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a ridiculously high bar. ECR is already a long way from the "anyone can edit" philosophy that has made Wikipedia the success it is, we shouldn't be making it more onerous for good faith users. There are already sufficient methods in place to deal with the clueless and those editing in bad faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant 30 days, not 6 months; I'd forgotten to double check WP:XC and only meant to change when the timer starts, not extend the timer. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-extended confirmed editors are explicitly allowed to make constructive suggestions for the improvement of the article. As part of that it is incumbent on us to allow such editors to workshop their proposals and/or provide a space for them to illustrate a possibly complicated change and userspace is the perfect location for this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Explicitly speaking, they are allowed to make constructive edit requests, not suggestions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is an edit request if not a suggestion? Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a request for a specific edit, whereas a suggestion can be something like "I think there should be more coverage of X," or "There's not enough coverage of Y's warcrimes." Those suggestions would violate ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A request such as "Please remove the section about X's criminal conviction" would be a violation (not a good faith contribution) but "I think [source 1] and [source 2] could be used to verify the bit about Y being on the rugby team at university." and "please fix the typo in the link to the 2023 in Israel article." would be perfectly fine even though they're not explicitly prhased as requests. What matters is not how it's phrased, but whether it is good faith and actionable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would appreciate the opinion of an arb on this (the 22:59, 10 February 2024 question). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction (permanent link) hasn't been formally closed yet, but does it really leave this question open? My personal opinion is that yes, these things are prohibited by the current ARBECR wording with little room for interpretation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. I've added a request there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is my proposed solution to everything: edit to BANPOL.—Alalch E. 00:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I've undone that edit, because while you may like to think of ECR as a topic ban describing it as such is far from uncontentious. You need to get consensus for major changes to policies like that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll let someone else propose it if they agree. Based on what I've read, I don't agree with you that it's "far from uncontentious". I've simply seen no evidence for that.—Alalch E. 01:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While there is some consensus (that I disagree with) that ECR may be enforced in the same way topic bans are enforced, I've never seen any consensus that ECR is a topic ban. Topic bans are imposed on specific editors for explicit wrong-doing after discussion with the editor has failed to resolve the situation (and so the editor is very clearly aware there is a topic ban and why), have a defined time limit or need to be explicitly appealed (with an appeal that shows it is no longer needed). ECR restrictions are placed on all editors, regardless of whether they are aware of them or not and regardless of whether they are here in good or bad faith, expire automatically (whether or not the editor was ever aware of them) after 30 days and 500 edits. They are very different. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bans are enforced by blocks. Bans enforce. They are a technique of enforcement. ECR is a technique of enforcement. That which is enforced is absence of disruption. Topic bans and ECR enforce a desirable state of things, with the same purpose, using the same mechanisms, with the exception of edit requests being allowed for ECR. How a method of enforcement is put into operation and conditions for its lifting is not what defines it, what defines it are the techiques that comprise it. Like all things, topic bans and ECR have their beginning and their end. It's what they are while they last that defines them. ECR is an automatically applied topic ban on all registered users. When you register, you are free to edit this free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but you are not free to edit the whole of it; you are a priori banned from editing certain portions of it. When it can be assumed with a marginal degree of certainty that you are able to edit non-disruptively by accumulating 500 edits over a certain number of days, you are automatically unbanned from areas from which you were restricted, and you can freely edit the whole of the encyclopedia. They are the same. —Alalch E. 17:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They have similarities, but they are not the same. A community ban, an arbcom ban, a topic ban, an ECR, etc. all have similarities but that doesn't make them the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General sanctions ... apply to all editors working in a particular topic area. These contrast with editing restrictions, also called "personal sanctions", which apply only to individual editors. A page restriction is a type of general sanction. A restriction that editors for a given topic area must be extended-confirmed is a page restriction and thus a general sanction, not an editor-specific restriction (and thus not within the scope of the banning policy, which covers personal editing restrictions). isaacl (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Sdkb allegations[edit]

Could y'all make a statement once the RfA ends (in like an hour) as to whether you have received any evidence from Homeostasis07 by that time? — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. ♠ 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:COURT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 19 § Wikipedia:COURT until a consensus is reached. — JJMC89(T·C) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently this notice contains the following text: You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days. Can we clarify that this refers only to the English Wikipedia? That no matter how many edits you have in another project, they don't count? The subject comes up now and then. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]