Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Special:Diff/934849515

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Special:Diff/934849515

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

• Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Special:Diff/934849515

• Replace 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without AFC.

Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please replace the 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a month without needing to go through AFC. This will reduce the number of articles I can create a year from 52 to 12 but will mean I can create them directly however we should also consider allowing me to create a specified number of civil parishes for the parishes project, there are 407 left as well as allowing appeal every 6 months. There are also a number of other suggestions I have made here. Several editors at the last appeal said they would be happy with allowing 1 article a week with no AFC but I don't think we need to allow 1 article a week on anything, it should probably only be 1 article a month but as noted a specified number of civil parishes for the project could be specified such as 1 article a month on anything and 1 parish 1 week etc so as noted it could just be 1 article every 3 months or 1 article every 6 months as long as the AFC requirement is removed. As noted before I have had very few articles declined at AFC. Please specify which options and what creation limits you accept even if its only 1 article a year, example, 1 article a month, 1 parish a week, appeal after 6 months.

• @Izno: In the previous request several arbitrators said they would be happy with removing the need to go to AFC by allowing me to create 1 article a week, in this appeal I'm suggesting as the 1st option to reduce 1 article a week to 1 article a month. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Izno: That back in 2010 my article creations were generally poorly sourced and often contained little meaningful content while now I have produced much better articles such as population data, coordinates and history, see Shoreswood and Greenstead Green and Halstead Rural for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Primefac: I haven't had any articles that I've created through AFC deleted (or redirected) at all not just this year. In several of those like South Wheatley, Nottinghamshire, Uig, Duirinish and Sunds they were created in mainspace from my draft by other users and then history merged, in the case of Clarborough and Welham, North and South Wheatley and Vildbjerg they were moved into mainspace by others. With regards to the abandoned drafts yes they get deleted under G13 but might get improved or moved by others and note that I don't have any restrictions on page creation in other namespaces per the 2019 amendment, the only restriction is the amount I submit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Beeblebrox: Because my last few previous appeals have failed so this time I'm making the 1st option low to reduce the chance of it completely failing. AFC is for new users and its a bit babyish for me as an experienced editor. While I agree it may have been helpful when I first joined Wikipedia in 2009 (though I was so clueless I probably would never have had any accepted) now I have shown I can create good articles. Since the community seem still concerned about me creating NN articles which are poorly sourced 1 a month would be an OK starting point and a different throttle limit for parishes (so that we can try to get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible) since while they are agreed to be notable by most people are still concerned about the quality of the articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  WP:NPLACE that legally recognized places are (with the exception of census tracts) generally presumed to be notable. Of the 10,474 parishes in England there are 406 missing which means less that 1 in 25.79 are missing which has gone down quite a bit in the last few years. If you look at other places around the world of administrative units created by Lsjbot on the other Wikipedias only England, Portugal and Wales that I've found so far (I haven't checked most places around the world) have missing articles here. If you look and the English Wikipedia and the native versions for other places you can see that they generally follow the same rules that I have suggested (and are already mostly done here) for low level municipalities namely having just 1 article if there is a settlement of the same name and separate articles if not, for example at Utzenaich and de:Utzenaich have 1 combined article for both village and municipality just like Wrington covers both village and parish but when there isn't a settlement there will be separate articles such as fr:Saline (Calvados) and Saline, Calvados and Ingatestone and Fryerning exist separately. Yes Adam is correct indeed that the English parishes have far less importance than many other similar units in different countries but they still clearly fall under being legally recognized. Regarding how quickly I can do this is being left open to the arbitrators which could be 10 parishes a day, 1 parish a day, 1 parish 1 week, 1 parish a month or 1 parish a year etc depending on how much you are prepared to allow. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @Bradv: There's a weak/rough consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC (at least if they are created with enough content etc) which was part of the purpose of that RFC to pass that recommendation, yes there are some doubts but it seems the vast majority to agree if created appropriately but if you don't really feel that's satisfied you could recommend a low throttle limit like 1 a month. In contrast there was a rough consensus against them being created with a bot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bradv: No there isn't anything after 2020 but what about the request to change the restriction from 1 article a week through AFC to 1 article a month (or less) without AFC? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bradv: Only really for the 2nd request (number of parishes I can create per week or month etc, namely increasing that number) probably not for the 1st request (being able to create 1 article a month on anything). For example supposing we grant the 1st request (being able to create 1 article a month on anything) and the 2nd request (number of parishes I can create) and we allow me to create 2 parishes a month (which is lower overall than my current 1 article a week at AFC) in 6 months I could ask the 2 parishes a month to be increase (say to 1 a week). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bradv: So perhaps as a way of moving forward given as you and others point out there is a lack of clear consensus for me to mass create them, how about we grant request 1 (1 article a month on anything) and we grant request 2 as something low like 2 parishes a month and we also conditionally grant 3 on the condition that there is consensus at a RFC (which given I got several "have an permanent moratorium on these England Parish RFCs") could be started instead by PamD or someone else who has interest/knowledge in this and if there is consensus to mass create I can appeal in 6 months to see if we can allow more parishes to be created per week or month etc but there is not consensus for this then I'll have to wait a whole year again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:MASSCREATE. So while 406 would be considered "large" its not going to be automated or semi-automated. Regarding the creation rate, as I've said the number of articles or parishes I can create can be anything so we could replace 1 article a week through AFC with 1 article a year or even 0 articles a year which would effectively prevent me from creating any articles at all, what rate limit would you be happy with? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Worm That Turned: The combination between that GEOLAND and the rough consensus at the RFC plus the fact that over 96% do currently exist here and the fact that most other places that I have checked do have 100% coverage on the English Wikipedia suggests it is a good idea. At the 2020 appeal you can see that PamD made a suggestion for allowing 1 a day plus redirects/DAB pages but unfortunately that was a few hours after you proposed the decline motion. Regarding my history I'd point out back in November 2010 when I was given autopatroll I had very little understanding of anything on Wikipedia and most of my articles had little content other than the location while I now have been producing much better articles. Why despite that significant improvement are we not even prepared to allow me to create a large number of specified articles over a period of time? Has WP suddenly go so much stricter? Or are we basing things on what happened over a decade ago? WTT I know you aren't because in the last appeal you said you aren't but I think I'm putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Regarding the problems with my articles in the past very few have actually been deleted (ignoring those I got deleted under G7) but many of the NN hamlets were redirected to the parish they were in. As Primefac pointed out (and I then noted) none of my articles at AFC have later been deleted or even merged. Yes I understand bans can be good in that they keep the editor from getting into trouble in areas they have caused problems but in this case I have demonstrated that I can now produce acceptable articles. If you look at my category creation (which was one of the things that was pointed out back in 2017 so I ended up getting a page creation ban rather than just article creation) you can see that since the page creation ban was replaced with only an article creation ban I have produced 1,065 categories and the only ones that were deleted were Category:Villages in Aberdeen which was later restored, Category:Former communities in Gwynedd (because the former community came back) Category:Isle of Gigha which was a redirect that was later moved over, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 161.73.194.241 which was emptied because the IP socks hadn't edited for over 2 years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf: Perhaps because there is a proposal to allow me to create less articles than I currently can or none at all. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Donald Albury: The modification to the base request of allowing me to create 1 article a month on any topic whatsoever (and the current situation where I can submit 1 article a week on any topic whatsoever) is that I would also be allowed to create a set amount (say 2 a month or 5 a week etc) on only (current) civil parishes in accordance with the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes_RfC which I already suggested namely not having a separate article from the settlement of the same name. This distinction should be done because it means I am then restricted (at a higher rate) to create topics that are notable while still having some restriction to ensure I create the articles with enough content etc per the RFC. For example if it was 1 article a month and 2 parishes a week I could create 1 article on any topic whatsoever a month but I could also create 2 articles a week on only current parishes. For the record 1 has just been created so we're now down to 405. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Cabayi: No, firstly this is a request about (current) parishes not defunct ones, secondly parishes need their own article not merely a mention in a list or other article. The lists at Category:Lists of civil parishes in England list the current ones and some of the former ones can be found at Category:Former civil parishes in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cabayi and PamD: I did notify all the county projects (or the talk page of the county) of any missing parishes, you can see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. A few were created as a result of those notifications and I notified a few editors who had previously been involved/interested in parish/other article creation. The idea of the project and dividing it up by county is that editors who are resident or otherwise interested in a particular county can make sure that there are no missing parishes in that relevant county. Regarding the other thing about 33 years, you missed the point, the 1 article a month was to allow me to create anything (the 1st request) the 2nd request was a specified number of parishes for the project to be allowed such as 1 a week or 1 a month etc but the 3rd request was to be allowed to appeal again in 6 months (as opposed to a year) so that we can increase the number of parishes I can create if all goes well and increase again in the next 6 months until all done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @CaptainEek: The 1 article a month is for other things, the 2nd part of the request is for the number of parishes. I don't see otherwise why you should object to a suggestion that we go from weekly to monthly but yes the other suggestion is to simply revoke it completely. And the ability to only appeal once a year is extremely onerous as it is so why would I not use it, that would be like you being entitled to be paid £1000 a month but only taking £1000 every 2 months. But yes on that note I'd quite happily give up my life savings to be able to contribute to the English Wikipedia without restriction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

There remains NPP, and anything odd is likely to be noticed there, as many of the same people work both. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

As a somewhat experienced AfC reviewer I'll chime in to respond to

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC from December 2020-January 2021 which didn't have that much participation and seems to have fizzled out with the general sentiment seeming to be that some but not all parishes should have articles.
• User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes from October 2021 where only Keith D and Crouch, Swale commented. The discussion focused on infoboxes and recommended starting a wider discussion, but if that wider discussion happened I haven't found it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that requirements of last year's request have not been met, have seemingly not even been attempted to be met, and recommendations for further discussion by other users since then have also not been followed up, I'm having a hard time understanding why this appeal is being considered? Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PamD

As someone who in 2016-17 created articles for many of the missing parishes in Cumbria (a whole batch had been deleted as the creations of a blocked editor, I think), I support the idea that every civil parish in England should be represented in Wikipedia, whether as a stand-alone article or as a clear description/section within the article on the settlement whose name it shares. Parishes have population figures available from census info on NOMIS, mostly they have a parish council or parish meeting which has a website or a mention on the county's website, their history is sometimes of interest and available from Visions of Britain, etc. But I confess that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC was just TLDR, hence my lack of input there. As for the Missing Parishes project, I chipped in at User:Crouch,_Swale/Missing_parishes_(1)#Cumbria, and that set of lists of county-by-county missing parishes seems a useful starting point for creation of useful articles. So without commenting on the overall question of Crouch's restrictions, I support allowing at least a slightly more generous allowance for the creation of parish articles. PamD 18:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as blue linked parishes are removed from the "Missing parishes" lists, no-one here will notice

Beeblebrox:. PamD 16:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Cabayi: No, as I understand it the list of 400 are current parishes, so Defunct parishes in England would be a large list but wouldn't include any of them. PamD 16:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Crouch, Swale: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale: Arbitrator views and discussion

• This appeal of restrictions, similarly to the last one you reference directly, does not appear to discuss the reasons why the restrictions exist nor why they should not exist today (or why they should be reduced). Can you clearly articulate why you think they do and why you think they should not? --Izno (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Crouch, Swale Let me repeat: Can you clearly articulate why you think [your restrictions exist]? As for the second question, I am not interested in what you think the "several" arbitrators said last time. Let me try asking the question a different way to see if that helps you understand what my second question was asking: What behavior can you show or what promises can you give that the behavior which earned you the restrictions in the first place will not be repeated? Izno (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Izno and feel there remains the mismatch I identified last year between the editor's good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia and community forbearance of those efforts. See also
  WP:WILDFLOWERS. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I am somewhat torn on this request. On the one hand there are the issues mentioned above and in previous appeals. On the other hand, sanctions are meant to keep an editor within the acceptable bounds of how an editor is expected to behave. Looking at their talk page, as well as their page creation stats, it would appear they have successfully created a large number of pages that were eventually accepted; by my count only two declined drafts this last year. As a side note, there are 59 drafts created in 2020 that were abandoned, which is a wild departure from the apparent norms, but they are old enough I do not think they mean as much as they would have a year ago.
  If this sanction gets lightened (either one-per-week or one-per-month with no AFC), what is the tangible outcome of that? We have one less check on someone who has so far been ~95% successful in creating acceptable drafts – even if they are stubs – with no articles subsequently deleted in the last year. To me the latter aspect is the relevant bit; having drafts accepted only to be deleted would indicate a lack of keeping with community norms, but to have zero deleted afterward indicates that AfC might not strictly be necessary in this case.
  So yes, I see a bit of a outlier from what would be considered "good" on Barkeep49's "excitement scale" (see last year's appeal), but at the same time I do not see a significant impact to simply dropping the AfC requirement. I will have to mull this over whilst awaiting other comments, but at the moment I am leaning slightly towards accepting some version of this request. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's kind of an odd request and I'm not at all sure I understand the point, why would only being able to submit an article once a month or even once every three months be preferable to being able to submit on a week through AFC? What is it about AFC that is so unbearable a burden?
  talk) 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well, it can't be said that you're not persistent. You have a link above to "the parishes project", but the link goes to a page in your userspace, not a wikiproject. You also say you want to get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible. Is there community consensus that these topics are all notable enough for standalone articles? If so, then I don't see much harm in the proposed changes; if someone's had consistent success through AfC we can reasonably say they're likely to continue. But it also seems like this change won't get to your stated goals any faster, so I'm not quite sure I get it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Is there community consensus that these topics are all notable enough for standalone articles? " That's an excellent question, considering that the restriction explicitly requires it.
    talk) 05:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yeah, and I don't read the discussion linked as even a rough consensus for much of anything, except not to do it by bot. At the risk of overstating my understanding of a topic I know nothing about, I'd say there's agreement these should be bluelinks, but not necessarily standalone articles. But so far the AfC articles are OK. In response to Thryduulf's question, I'm open to it because the request seems to reduce the amount of community effort invested without much risk of harm. "12 articles a year, and you have to go back to AfC if any of them get deleted"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Crouch, Swale, in response to your last appeal we modified your restriction to specify that you "should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions." Have you done so? – bradv^🍁 19:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Crouch, Swale, this committee is not going to decide whether you should be allowed to create all these articles. Per last January's appeal, it is up to you to ask the community for consensus to do so, and then we will consider lifting your restriction so that you can implement that consensus. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Parishes RfC predates your 2021 appeal, so unless you can point to something more recent, and with a clearer consensus, I am disinclined to grant this request. – bradv^🍁 16:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Crouch, Swale, my issue with lifting any restrictions at this point is that we would be acting contrary to what we said last year, which is that you should seek consensus for these edits before asking for this. – bradv^🍁 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Crouch, Swale, you are now suggesting that, if we can grant this request, you will appeal this restriction every six months in order to loosen your restriction further. You are basically asking ArbCom for permission to create these articles, when, as previously stated, you should be asking the community in the form of an RfC. I will not be voting to loosen your restrictions at this point, as I see no compelling argument for why we should overturn the previous motion. – bradv^🍁 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Barkeep49, I can take this discussion elsewhere if it's a diversion, but I don't understand the intent of WILDFLOWERS, even though I gather you're trying to keep it somewhat open-ended. My read of it is that the editor analog, despite good intentions, has a fundamentally wrong idea (i.e., wildflowers are weeds), and irritates the community by not recognizing that they're outside the mainstream. I assume this is a bad read on my part, because the key question when assessing an editor's behavior is not "Does the community like this?" but "Are they following policies and guidelines?" --BDD (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your read is pretty close to what I was intending to say to Crouch, Swale @BDD. Policies and guidelines are always going to have some margin for interpretation; this is why, for instance, we have explanatory supplements to some policies and guidelines or why ArbCom lays out its interpretation in the principles decision of a case. WILDFLOWER suggests that there can be a good faith interpretation of policies and guidelines by an editor that falls outside of community consensus and when an editor tries to act on that good faith but outside the consensus position that it will be seen as disruptive by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps my read of it was too narrow; I assumed the position "these wildflowers are weeds" to be outright wrong, but perhaps the idea was that it was a valid but not widely held position? --BDD (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Chess's comment, combined with Crouch, Swale's record over the past year, makes me think the AfC requirement is burdening the community without a clear benefit. Mea culpa, I didn't read carefully enough this year and thought the request was to go from monthly to weekly rather than vice versa. I probably misread because the actual request sounds like a step back to me. Nevertheless, I can support the first sentence of the request. The rest, I would have to think of. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NPLACE don't solve this specific consensus that the articles shouldn't be mass created.
  However, I will say that his article writing skill appear to have improved, and I am heartened by the fact that the articles are coming out positively, and I do appreciate his request to reduce the frequency of his creations while removing the AfC requirement, a reasonable compromise, as effectively it is reducing the rate of creation. I have to say, I would be open to this change if other arbs are. Worm^TT(talk) 16:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• While I wish Crouch, Swale were a little less focused on completing his list ("so that we can try to get the 406 missing parishes done as soon as reasonably possible"), I'm willing to let him show how he does under the modification he proposes. - Donald Albury 18:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Fourth Annual Crouch, Swale Amendment Request" does not have a good ring to it, and fills me with a sense of foreboding for January 2023. I'm reluctant to dive into horsetrading over article numbers and whether they're reviewed at AFC or NPP, especially while there's a pool of 407 drafts in waiting. Nor do I favour letting the restrictions and appeals drag on forever, consuming reviewer time and Arbcom time unnecessarily.
  Would a Defunct parishes in England article recording these parishes (somewhat akin to the Areas transferred section of Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844) make a significant reduction in the list of outstanding work? Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point to the previous question was to see if

There's more than one way to do it" and it would be of benefit all round if you'd look for another way. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Cabayi and Worm that the annual amendment request is not reassuring. I suggest that the next appeal be your last, and that it seek to simply remove your restriction altogether. I don't like this horsetrading restrictions business. You should make the appeal only when you are confident that you fully understand the process, the expectations, and that your content will not require review. Otherwise, you waste your time and ours. Wait a year, two years, five even. But if I think you're appealing just for the heck of it going forward, I will not take kindly to it. Just because you can appeal in a year doesn't mean you should.

The last motion stated that consensus was needed for large creation of articles. As far as I see, the RfC seemed against the mass creation, or at least no consensus as Thryduulf says. So perhaps you need a new RfC, in a better location, focused more precisely on whether the articles as a batch are notable (and if so, should be created by you). I think the last one suffered from being in a low traffic area. But beyond that, its a content issue, which is outside our wheelhouse. On the bright side, now I know what a civil parish is. Ya learn something new everyday... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yeah, I got curious myself and did the math. 33 years seems a bit long.
    talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• My thinking currently aligns with Primefac's, but I also certainly would be just fine declining this appeal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Crouch, Swale

Support

1. Weak support. I don't mind the January appeals - it's a well-known pattern by now, but it really is true that the beginning of the year is best for getting arb attention to your issue. I'm not thrilled by the approach here, essentially ignoring the consensus element of the previous motion, and showing a clear lack of perspective. But, the request is actually asking for less total community time invested. So, OK. You won't get your list done very fast at that rate, but maybe you'll discover some of the remaining entries on the list don't really need their own article, or others will decide to write some. You could always work on building up the content of existing articles on notable places. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yeah, not really happy about the horse-trading and the lack of commitment to identifying a consensus myself, but OR is reasonable here. --Izno (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments from arbitrators

I think there's been enough views aired here; time to get an up-or-down vote on this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Atsme at 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. You are indefinitely topic banned from Anti fascism in the United States, broadly construed.

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

• Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff of notification for Awilley.

Information about amendment request

• Topic ban from Antifascism US imposed at Talk:Atsme, first on July 22, 2019, amended on July 24, 2019 at Talk:Atsme.

• Repeal requested

Statement by Atsme

The date of Awilley's first topic ban action is July 22 2019 but he modified it July 24, 2019 to cover US only, perhaps because I called an RfC at the only article that is clearly subject of this t-ban, and where I also received an apology for the behavior that resulted in my stated concerns over how I was being treated. As Awilley has said in the past to other editors who reacted defensively to aggressive editors, we need to grow

• Response to starship.paint - this diff was my response to the apology I received, and I'm hoping that my response to that apology will also serve as a demonstrative answer to your question about recommitting. I have always taken and will continue to take my commitments seriously. Atsme 💬 📧 01:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin, I didn't intend to make time-served the primary reason for my appeal. If you are concerned about my behavior in that particular topic area after examining the diffs - can you please be more specific and at least provide a diff or two so I can at least see & understand what has raised your concerns to the point that you're hesitant to remove a t-ban that has been in place for 2-1/2 years? Without specifics, I'm at a loss. I was under the impression that blocks and t-bans are to be used to stop disruption, not punish editors. So please forgive me for not quite understanding what purpose you see this t-ban is serving to stop disruption at this point in time. Atsme 💬 📧 02:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Opabinia regalis, I do appreciate your question and multiple choice options, which brought to mind your response to me a short time ago. I'm not one to "blow smoke", so I'll just say, somewhat apologetically, that I have no clue as to how much time I will devote to WP in the coming years. Over the past decade, my volunteer participation in any controversial topic area has been negligible in the grand scheme of things, but sadly, those little black marks I've inadvertently managed to accumulate over the years are indelible, quite depressing and major incentive killers that resulted in my spending less time editing in general. This essay on my UTP serves as a reminder of how much time I want to devote, considering how much our work is appreciated. I will also add that the extent of my activity as a WP volunteer in general is contingent upon ArbCom's actions to implement much needed changes in DS/AE in an effort to remedy the problems that work against collaborative editing, and inadvertently encourage WP:POV creep which tips the scales in favor of whatever systemic bias is prevalent at the time, gives first mover advantage, and discourages NPOV and the consensus building process. Perhaps this AfD will serve a useful purpose as a case study for ArbCom when deliberating over the efficacy of DS/AE. There is always room to improve AE actions, especially when determining whether or not an editor is actually being disruptive or admin prejudice is involved vs productively contributing to the consensus building process. To me, this response demonstrates good judgement in a highly controversial and lengthy discussion. I cast my iVote in that AfD, and was neither repeatedly questioned nor bullied which is what typically happens in controversial topic areas. Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• BDD, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was referring to the template as it existed in July 2019. The template is a muted fuchsia pink with rather large bold letters, and at the time simply stated: "Fascism is a right wing ideology. The consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources is that Fascism is a right-wing ideology and not a left wing one. This has been discussed numerous times; please see the archives. Please do not request that "right-wing" be changed to "left-wing"; your request will be denied." The current template's bold title catches one's eye and contradicts what both the first sentence and article lead state. That TP will never be stable because of that template, but I've long since learned
  WP:IDGAF. Atsme 💬 📧 03:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC) ^{see underlined text 07:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)}[reply
  ]
• Black Kite - I will gladly respond to any specific concerns you may have about my behavior if you would be so kind as to point out the violations you believe I'm guilty of committing, and provide supporting diffs. So far, none of the diffs provided against me support the claims of backsliding, whatever "backsliding" means. It is clearly a broad and subjective term which requires specifics for clarity. I beg of you to please, please not use that generality to base your decision because there is no policy or guideline that defines backsliding as an actionable offense. It doesn't even represent a good summary close of my original appeal, which was granted and after all these years should have no bearing on the current t-ban that Awilley himself described as an extremely small and relatively ugly part of the encyclopedia. Bishonen used stale diffs that don't support her claims. One diff points to a comment I made on my UTP to the "regular user" who wrongfully accused me of a BLP vio, obviously in retaliation for this incident. Black Kite, you also participated in that ANI case; Ivanvector closed it with an excellent summary. With all claims considered, how does this diff not demonstrate favoritism for the "regular user" and prejudice against me? This isn't the first time, either. As for the Fox News RfC allegation - the multiple admins who closed that RfC stated: There was a very large amount of what we considered to be bludgeoning from certain participants of this RFC. While there is no formal limit to the maximum number of times one may comment on a given discussion, replying with the same argument(s) to multiple participants holding an opposite viewpoint becomes extremely tedious (bordering on tendentious). None of the participants were charged with a violation. I even contacted Rosguill via private email because I was very concerned, and I absolutely do care so please don't believe the misrepresentations about me. If prejudiced admins had been involved in that Fox RfC, they probably would have seen it as tendentious editing, and the heads of editors with whom they disagreed would have rolled. I was advised that the reference included all editors who made over 10 comments in the discussion, which did include me among several others, which again brings to mind this AfD, and further begs the question about the merits of Bishonen's warning on my UTP in 2020, and her use of those old diffs to poison the well against me now. It makes me very sad. Atsme 💬 📧 07:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With the utmost respect for this forum, the scope of my appeal, and the arbitrators who are taking/have taken the time to consider it, I will not respond to the unfounded allegations and prejudiced opinions that reach beyond the scope of this appeal. Atsme 💬 📧 15:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Izno - "total disengagement" was not intentional - it was RL getting in the way, but I appreciate your enthusiasm. Ironically, I get t-banned for claims that I post too much, and reprimanded for not posting enough. Please allow me a bit more time to present my final thoughts. When I'm pressed for time, my posts are too long. Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

Sorry, traveling. I've always been willing to lift this ban on the condition that Atsme makes some kind of commitment to remedy the problem that led to this (and the previous) ban. I haven't seen that yet. The last appeal (June 2021) was kind of the opposite. Summarizing: "Commit to what? There is no problem. Others were the problem. You're the problem.") I'd be happy to see this ban lifted if Atsme simply said she'd try harder to follow the 2019 promise referenced below by StarshipPaint. ~Awilley (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: for anyone unfamiliar with the history, this started with my closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Atsme this appeal, which rescinded Atsme's topic ban for the whole of American Politics. Based on comments in the admin section, my close included a warning that "backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban will result in further sanctions". Less than 4 months later I saw these edits [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] accusing 4 different editors of, among other things, "gaslighting" and POV pushing. That seemed a clear case of backsliding, but instead of restoring the full AP2 topic ban, I imposed a very narrow ban for Anti-Fascism (ANTIFA).

I'll avoid any further defense of the legitimacy of the ban. I think that was settled in previous appeals. Nov 2019 Nov 2020

@North8000: I'm not insisting on a full re-commitment to the 2019 promises specifically. I just want to see some kind of commitment to do better. I'd settle for something as simple as "In the future I'll try to avoid accusing people of gaslighting." This is how I approach all appeals. ~Awilley (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

@

Support withdrawn (am neutral) for now, it seems that the benefit of the doubt given may have been misplaced given the later whatever "backsliding" means overall statement. So, the history, topic banned for [8] filibustering and dominating discussions without bringing them forward (2018), effectively commits not to bludgeon (2019, see above), but did bludgeon in the 2020 Fox News RfC (this is a clear example from the link to the discussion itself even if diffs are not provided), that's backsliding. Atsme - defensiveness over that RfC, or defensiveness over Bishonen's statements, are not helpful. What would be more helpful to your case - 1) acknowledge that the 2020 Fox News RfC bludgeoning was problematic in the context of your 2018 topic ban and your 2019 commitment, and 2) clearly re-commit (like 2019) to not repeating this behaviour (of 2020). starship.paint (exalt) 14:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CaptainEek

Speaking as an editor and not an Arb, since I have a fairly strong personal opinion on the matter and am the main author on Anti-fascism. As a practical point, this sanction is no longer needed. Its been over two years. Anti-fascism in the US is no longer the spicy hot-button issue it was a few years back. Atsme notes that she is not usually involved in these sort of topics. Even at the time she made a well worded appeal. I understand there is some hesitance to remove a ban because the editor wants a clean slate. But I think we should be more aware of the impacts of sanctions. We may have high ideals about turning the other cheek and being magnanimous, but our editors are still just people. Having inapplicable or unjust sanctions applying to them years later decreases editor morale and editor retention. Lift Atsme's ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I won't oppose or support Atsme's article ban appeal. But since at least one arb (Primefac) has shown interest in the larger question of her 2019 new year's promises to do better in the area of American politics, I'll offer a brief history of the fate of these promises, and also point to her apparent unwillingness to explicitly reaffirm them here. These were some very strong and sincere-sounding promises which led to her indefinite AP2 topic ban being lifted in March 2019 and which are partly quoted by Starship.paint above. Atsme's reply to Starship.paint's question about recommitting to the promises seems quite evasive. It consists only of a diff from July 2019 meant as a "demonstrative answer" (?), and the statement that I have always taken and will continue to take my commitments seriously. The diff does not mention those promises or their content. It seems irrelevant to Starship.paint's question, and I'm quite surprised Starship.paint 'understands it as a yes'. I wonder if Primefac and the other arbs understand it so too.

Atsme has not always taken those commitments seriously. By August 2020, she had comprehensively backslid (in my opinion) from them, and when this was pointed out by a regular user,[9] she showed no interest in reaffirming the commitments or even acknowledging them.[10] Indeed, she aggressively blew off the regular user with "I don't need you dancing atop a 2 year action [this refers to her t-ban from American politics] that was questionable from the get-go. Stop dredging up the past" and impugned their motives. The way she absconded from her promises and resented being reminded of them alarmed me, and I posted a warning in my admin role,[11] reminding her that they were what got her topic ban lifted and giving specifics about current problems that I perceived. A striking recent example then was the way she had bludgeoned the Fox News RFC in the summer of 2020, posting some 75 times in it — quite the contrast to the 2019 undertaking "If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas". I urged her to re-read her old appeal and start living up to her old promises, or I would consider reinstating the AP2 topic ban. She made no reply. Perhaps the arbs want to consider whether they'd like a clearer reply from Atsme to the question above about reaffirming her promises. Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• I'll just add a link to the mentioned Fox News RfC in 2020, in case people want to see Atsme's input for themselves. Bishonen | tålk 17:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Rather than clarifying whether she stands by the promises that got her un-topic-banned from American politics, Atsme is now saying in her response to Black Kite and me (formally only to Black Kite) that "there is no policy or guideline that defines backsliding as an actionable offense". I have a couple of comments on that: ignoring old promises once they have served their purpose is dishonest, not indeed per any 'policies or guidelines', but per
  WP:IAR.) And secondly: in the summary close of Atsme's t-ban appeal, she was specifically warned against backsliding, both on on the WP:AE page[12] and in the AE log.[13] I suppose it's a pity that she didn't then ask 'Whatever does backsliding mean?', as she's doing now. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC).[reply
  ]

I don't think my opinion will matter much but I would support the appeal. This isn't an appeal to lift a general politics tban, but a narrow sub-set tban. Atsme has shown that they aren't a problem in the broader topic space which should be all the evidence we need to say that this ban is no longer needed to protect Wikipedia. Politics, especially in the last year has been particularly divisive yet we don't have clear evidence of any backsliding. I know Bishonen noted the concerns of another editor. It's worth noting the editor was involved in the topic area and several topics with Atsme herself vs an uninvolved editor trying to raise a helpful concern. We are over a year later and two and a half years after the general AP ban was lifted. It seems like it's increasingly difficult to view this tban as needed to protect Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla, is the issue that Atsme has actually violated some rules you can point to or is it because she is often on the other side of debates over content you try to add to articles? A number of editors agreed that you should have been narrow topic banned here [14] due to concerns regarding BLP violations. One editor proposed a complete AP tban [15]. You have accused me of provocation on several occasions because I updated your DS Alerts. It seems you respond the same way when an admin adds it [16]. I updated it because in the past you have violated the NPA rules[17][18]. Your talk page shows an number of editors concerned about bad reverts[19], edit warring [20][21], and other less than ideal editor behaviors [22][23][24][25]. Accusations from editors aren't the same thing as proof and often the devil is in the details. Still, quite a few editors have had issues with the way you have handled edits or editor interactions with them. Why should it be assumed that Atsme's issues were the result of unreasonableness on her part? Springee (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those who are opposing the removal, what harm are we protecting here? The purpose of tbans etc is specifically to protect Wikipedia. What harm is likely to come if this is removed? I think that Bishonen's comments have given editors real concern but should they? I see two basic concerns, the first being replies to Soibangla, the second being replies to the Fox RfC. Above I mentioned the concerns other editors have expressed with the way Soibangla has interacted with others. Atsme's replies to what look like battleground comments directed at Atsme look blunt but restrained. The Fox RfC did have a lot of comments but it was a VERY long RfC [26]. This RfC had 63 citations, ~650 signed edits and was active for a month and a half (7 June to 21 July). I counted 67 signed comments by Atsme in that RfC. Quite a few editors were well into the double digits. Many of Atsme's edits were back and forth discussions rather than an editor individually challenging every editor who opposed Atsme's POV which is typically where we raise the bludgeoning concern. They weren't a bunch of uncivil comments, most seem quite congenial even in disagreement. Yes, 67 is a lot but when looking at the total size and But when we look at the total length and breadth of the discussion this isn't the bludgeoning the raw number makes it appear to be. So after 2.5 years of very contentious politics this is all the evidence we have to refuse to lift a narrow topic band? Again, are we actually protecting Wikipedia? If people really are that concerned I think WTT's probationary period is a good compromise. Springee (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I came here to support this, but now I'd like to see an answer to Bishonen's statement. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soibangla

I was highly reluctant to participate in this discussion, but Atsme's assertion that I wrongfully accused me of a BLP vio, obviously in retaliation for this incident is flatly false and is indicative of an unrelenting vendetta that Atsme is attempting to project upon me. I find Atsme incorrigible and if it were up to me Atsme would have been permanently banned from AP2 years ago. I cannot fathom why Atsme has been given so many passes for persistently bad behavior. And I fully anticipate that I will be targeted for retribution for coming right out and saying it. Bring it. soibangla (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

I'd like to hear Atsme's response to Awilley's request. Unlike starship.paint, I don't take her response as a yes, and I'd prefer something more clearcut. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I don't follow AP so consider this a kibitzer opinion. A request to remove a ban should be crisp and clear. It should recognize why the ban was imposed and clearly state what the editor will do to ensure that the particular behavior is not repeated. I don't see that here. starship.paint's question, for example, required a pro-forma "yes, yes, yes,..." response but, instead, we get a two year old diff that is a non-answer (especially in the light of later diffs from Bishonen). The Opabinia regalis question also required a straightforward answer (this, this, this, or some combination of the three) but, instead, we get a long meandering response with a pointer to an essay (with a, less than encouraging, reference to "admin cabals") and an AfD, neither of which actually answer the questions. Frankly, the topic ban itself seems so limited that it hardly seems to matter whether it stays or goes but, procedurally, it would be nice to see clear statements from the requester and I'm puzzled as to why Atsme seems to not want to be direct in their responses. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

Support. 2 1/2 years is enough. Regarding the possible commitment in question, it is a very long post with at least a half dozen interpret-able conditions and a minefield for anybody to commit to. About the only way to fulfill the multiple possible interpretations of those half dozen commitments would be near-zero participation. A better merge would be saying zero drama in that area (with near-zero participation being the only way to safe way to fulfill all interpretations of that)for 6 months. After that they would just have the same scrutiny that all editors have. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Cool and sounds very reasonable. I was just pointing out the issues of going by that particular post and why one would be hesitant to commit to it. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest clarification. After 12 months and if all goes well, is it all over, or go back to a full ban or require another discussion/decision here? North8000 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

Atsme previously appealed this topic ban unsuccessfully at

As others have pointed out, Atsme's AP2 topic ban was lifted in response to vague commitments to do better, commitments which were promptly ignored and exposed as toothless. It was foolish and irresponsible to have lifted that topic ban in the absence of any insight or reason to think the underlying behavior would change. But doing the same thing again—as you seem to be considering here—would be outright administrative malpractice. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with wbm1058 that a "provisional" clause would be meaningless and redundant. If you really think this appeal provides a reasonable assurance that the previous issues won't recur, then grant it. Otherwise don't. Don't punt this to some hypothetical uninvolved admin to re-instate the ban—and especially don't pretend that re-imposing the ban is cost-free. As I emphasized above, you're just shifting the cost.

If you trust someone not to backslide into problematic behavior when they won't even acknowledge the meaning of the word "backsliding", then at least have the courage of your convictions and just make a decision. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wbm1058

The amendment is requested to You are indefinitely topic banned from Anti fascism in the United States, broadly construed. I fail to see, how under even the broadest of construals, the RfC about the reliability of Fox News has anything to do with Antifa in the US.

I don't follow the concept of put a "provisional" clause on the removal, that an uninvolved administrator can return it and if none have after 12 months it is completely removed. Aren't uninvolved administrators always authorized to place discretionary sanctions where allowed – for new instances of sanctionable behavior, even if the sanction is identical to a previously expired or repealed sanction that was imposed for an old instance of sanctionable behavior? – without needing any enabling "clause" – and would removal of the "clause" after 12 months then have the effect of prohibiting the imposition of sanctions for new instances of sanctionable behavior? wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The primary meaning of backsliding, according to Wikipedia, is a term used within Christianity to describe a process by which an individual who has converted to Christianity reverts to pre-conversion habits and/or lapses or falls into sin... the backslidden individual is in danger of eventually going to Hell if he does not repent. I don't care for the use of this term with its negative religious connotations in conversations about behavior on Wikipedia. Ideally, I'd like to see both terms "backsliding" and "gaslighting" removed from the vocabulary of behavioral discussions on Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

I would recommend Atsme provide a direct and concise response to the arbs and Awilley and then just avoid AP articles and issues altogether. No one can fix those places, especially in this political climate. So it better to find places in the pedia that allow one to have some fun and avoid some folks with serious mental and emotional issues.--MONGO (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Is there anything actually added by the provisional nature of the motion below? Cant any uninvolved admin already re-impose a topic ban as a DS if they feel it required, AP2 still being a topic area covered by DS? Just seems like a distinction without a difference in lifting the ban and the way it is worded below. nableezy - 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

• ☖ 05:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Recuse CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to hear the answer to starship.paint's query, but at the moment I am leaning towards accepting the appeal. Primefac (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Atsme: Hi - are you appealing on the merits or because the sanction is no longer necessary? Parts of your appeal suggest the former and others suggest the latter. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the information of my colleagues, I am not currently inclined to grant the appeal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a case of "I'm not interested in returning to the topic but it just bothers me to have a blot on my record"? Or is it because you are interested in editing about antifascism in the US, or expanding your editing about American politics in general? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really good at being inactive, so I'm not going to hold a few days against anyone. Since Atsme asked for time, I'll wait to vote till she's had time to follow up. If it helps focus your thoughts, I think it would be helpful to respond to some of the concerns expressed above about your previous commitments, and particularly Awilley's last post. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Atsme, the language in Talk:Fascism and the article lede look to be in sync to me. Are you referring to an issue that was since fixed? --BDD (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also amenable to this request at the moment. If people are concerned about Atsme's promises, we could put a "provisional" clause on the removal, that an uninvolved administrator can return it and if none have after 12 months it is completely removed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:CIVIL, Minority Report (film)
  ...)

WTT's proposal sounds like a reasonable way forward. Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point in time I would also support WTT's idea. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not inspired by the total disengagement on Atsme's part on the 4th. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: American politics 2

Support

1. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think this strikes the right balance.
   talk) 07:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Initiated by GeneralNotability at 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Scientology 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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Not applicable.

Statement by GeneralNotability

I ask that ArbCom clarify whether remedy 2 of the Scientology case, "

Statement by Wizzito

Actually, looking at the query linked, the last 2 IPs blocked for Scientology reasons were 216.60.18.40 (registered to the

• 66.134.120.117, registered to Moxon & Kobrin, blocked 3 times, only made 1 edit in 2005.
• 207.90.4.0/24, registered to the Flag Service Organization, no edits since 2010.
• 209.33.168.184/29, registered to Scientology in Dallas, never edited.
• 64.206.134.192/29, registered to Scientology in New York, never edited.
• 24.96.32.80/28, registered to Scientology in Clearwater, FL, never edited.
• 69.212.91.200/29, registered to Scientology in Plano, TX, never edited.
• 69.104.202.208/29, Scientology in San Francisco, never edited.
• 67.127.237.40/29, also in San Fran, never edited.
• 67.125.78.232/29, also in San Fran, never edited.
• 64.109.41.152/29, in Plano, never edited.
• 63.199.209.128/29, also in San Fran, hasn't edited since 2009.
• 70.90.200.8/29, in Albuquerque, never edited.
• 208.16.163.192/26, in LA, never edited. wizzito | say hello! 22:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it goes on and on...

• 198.95.10.0/24, registered to "sys000.scientology.org", never edited
• 198.77.154.0/23, last edit in 2019, last Scientology edit in 2016
• 12.9.238.0/23, Scientology in San Jacinto, CA, no edits since 2009

There are a bit more than this, but overall, my point is that this rule is outdated and these IPs barely edit or don't at all (at least anonymously, I'd 100 percent support a checkuser for some of these ranges) wizzito | say hello! 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izno I feel as if that would be useless, though, my point here is that these IPs are barely active, haven't been reblocked, and some are reassigned by now. wizzito | say hello! 22:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If active disruption ever happens from any Scientology IP in the future, we can just block those as necessary and maybe per 5.1. wizzito | say hello! 22:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I've been an active watcher (and sometimes reverter) at the top level Scientology article. I think that there is still some more wiki-saavy efforts by them there but the old IP protection is probably not needed or relevant. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Scientology: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse, obviously. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Absent evidence of disruption within the last year or two, I would be fine repealing remedy 2. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This one has been in the back of my head notes as a likely candidate for removal as I believe the community processes are in place to take care of problematic edits. There is also remedy 5.1 should it be needed (or perhaps that one could also be on the chopping block). I might also consider reframing the motion in terms of a ban on editing from the church rather than specifically targeting the IP addresses (which will and obviously have shifted as presented). --Izno (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also open to rescinding the remedy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am certainly open to this and Scientology DS had been one of the DS that I have suggested be rescinded in the (hopefully soon to be revived but for now stalled) DS reform. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to hold off for more input before voting, but from what I see here I'm inclined to agree that this can go. 2009 was a very different landscape than what we have now, I think COIN and other community measures can probably handle any brushfires that may pop up in this subject area.
  talk) 04:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Per above, give it a bit of time in case anyone else has relevant information to share, but it looks like this has outlived its usefulness. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it sounds like our usual procedures could handle such disruption if it recurs. --BDD (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia of 2008 is very different to Wikipedia of 2022. I believe the community should be able to manage disruption from IPs and since there does not appear to be any recent, I'm happy for this to be removed. Worm^TT(talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Monitoring & trailing Scientology's IPs from 12 years ago is about as constructive as bemoaning their undermining of
  WP:COI can be dealt with under normal procedures. Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 11:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Proposed, per comments above. Any disruption from IPs in this topic area can be handled without this specific measure. – bradv^🍁 17:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Donald Albury 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. BDD (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. An easy one. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. talk) 20:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator comments

Initiated by BilledMammal at 04:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff of notification for ProcrastinatingReader, though as they are only quoted this may not have been required

Statement by BilledMammal

I ask that ArbCom clarify whether ECR applies to discussions on RSN regarding sources that are related to the topic area, broadly construed. If it does, I ask ArbCom to also clarify related to the topic area, broadly construed in this context, and whether non-ECP editors are allowed to comment regarding the reliability of the source for uses outside of topics covered by ECR.

This clarification request was prompted by two discussions at RSN, Jewish Chronicle and CounterPunch. Both had considerable involvement from socks and non-ECP editors, and during a close review of the former where the question of ECR was raised the closer stated I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.

Apologies Beeblebrox; I wasn't clear in my request. I am requesting clarification about when the restriction applies to discussions at RSN, not how it is applied. Specifically, discussions about the general reliability of a source, typically RFC's for listing at RSP, rather than narrower discussions about the use of a source in a specific article. BilledMammal (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To try and clarify further, I would broadly define this request as "Can discussions regarding project-wide topics, such as those to determine the reliability of a source for inclusion at RSP, be sufficiently related to the topic area, broadly construed for ECR to apply?" If the response to this is "yes", the follow up clarification requests to this would be "How is "sufficiently" determined?" and, given the need to not disenfranchise users from participating in discussions, "How do we handle the participation of non-ECP editors in such discussions?". BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis I don't believe there is anything unusual about those two RFC's that would result in broader than usual input. I also believe you are right about a large number of non-ECP editors being unusual; I took a look at a recent RFC with decent participation, RfC: The Daily Wire, and was unable to identify any !votes from non-ECP editors, though it is possible that I overlooked them. I also took a look at a recent RFC with !votes from multiple socks, RfC: The Canary, and found that of the unbanned !voters, four were non-ECP at the time of the RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Beeblebrox and BDD; based your comments about how it currently functions, I believe there will be a number of RFC's at RSN that will need to be reclosed, including but not limited to The Canary and CounterPunch. However, while I understand the difficulty in providing a precise definition, I would ask that you comment on two ambiguous examples so that we have a baseline to refer to. Specifically, would ECR apply to an RFC on CNN (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, but discussions about its reliability do not tend to involve ECR topics) and an RFC on Al Jazeera (used somewhat frequently in ECR topics, and discussions about its reliability do tend to involve ECR topics). I would assume that it doesn't apply to the former and that it does apply to the latter, but I would appreciate formal clarification on this, particularly if I am incorrect.

Finally, I would note without raising a question that this would appear to mean that ECR also applies to RM's that have an impact both inside and outside ECR areas, such as this one (ECR not applied at the time, two blocked socks, one unblocked IP). BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

As regards Arbpia related matters, I am almost sure that the intention has been to disallow unqualified editors from participating in formal discussions, see this ARCA, the usual procedure being to strike any comments made. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: The case is not about those three RFCs specifically but the more general question of whether participation is permitted at noticeboards if the matter under discussion is related to matters where ecp applies (not just Arbpia). As several have said, "broadly construed" would be a case by case issue decided at the time of/before/after a discussion so I don't think there is any retrospective declaration here.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Part 5B(1) of the ARBPIA General Sanctions says

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. (my emphasis)

Since RSN is a noticeboard, non-ec editors are not allowed to engage in ARBPIA-related discussion there. Zero^talk 13:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OR, the number of socks and non-ec editors taking part in those discussions was exceptional even by ARBPIA standards. It is reasonable to ask why but I have no evidence to offer. Zero^talk 13:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, you write that e-c restrictions are "not to disenfranchise users from participating in discussions", but the part of the ARBPIA General Sanctions that I put in bold are intended to keep non-ec editors out of formal discussions. They are necessary because otherwise RfCs, RMs, etc, are overrun by IPs and SPAs. It can't be controlled by anti-disruption methods, because it isn't obviously disruptive. (Imagine if 10 IPs show up and all !vote the same way. Can an uninvolved admin decide to remove them all? On what grounds?) They can still participate in informal talk-page discussion. These rules are a blessing for the smooth running of the ARBPIA area and I really really hope you don't consider changing them. Zero^talk 13:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

• The only question in my opinion does Counterpunch RFC is ARBPIA discussion. I personally not 100% sure many outlets print about I/P conflict it doesn't meant that the general reliability discussion about them is I/P related Shrike (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader (ECR)

I was notified but I'm not sure exactly what the question is here. If the issue is my statement during review of the Jewish Chronicle RfC (I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition.), my issue was not whether ECR can apply to RSN discussions in the abstract (I understand that it can), the issue is whether it applies to the RfC in question. Rarely do RfCs say "is X source reliable for articles in Y topic area". The Jewish Chronicle one was marked asking with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam, although the consensus I found was for the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians. Some editors commented on the reliability more generally, and not just limited to these areas. So are non-EC editors prohibited from commenting here? If so, who makes that call? I don't know if it's appropriate for a non-admin closer to unilaterally decide whether an administrative ruling applies in order to disenfranchise certain editors in these circumstances. I will note that there was severe sockpuppet disruption in that RfC (6 sockpuppets), but all were above EC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

To respond to Kevin's comment specifically. The issue (in light of the Daily Mail RFC) is that many of the 'Is X source reliable' discussions now do not follow the instructions at the top of RSN - that a source has to be evaluated in context as to the article its being used on and what information is being referenced. The Daily Mail RFC was clear cut in that when you do this with the modern mail, it almost always fails the reliability tests, and when it doesnt overtly do so, you cant trust it anyway due to its documented history of making things up. The intent was to shorten the time spent *constantly* having to review a source that you knew was 9 times out of 10 be crap because someone had used it and been reverted. And when it wasnt, you had a host of better sources available anyway.

Functionally now what happens is you have broad general reliability discussions about sources, which dont look at the individual uses, but in actuality are specifically being used in a narrow topic area (most commonly right-wing/conservative sources for American Politics or Israel/Palestine) to push a certain viewpoint. The goal of the discussion is to blanket allow/disallow a source based on ideological point of view rather than an objective "is this source reliable for the information to be included in the article". Why this is problematic from an RSN point of view, is that ECP-prohibited editors from the IP area can easily skew a discussion on sourcing when it is a general review rather than a close look at what the sources are being used for, because you can argue the broad review of a newspaper isnt covered by broadly construed, but you cant do so when the topic is specifically about IP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BobFromBrockley

I participated in the CounterPunch, Canary and Jewish Chronicle RfCs. If I understand the discussion here correctly, the argument is that because these discussions fall within the ARBPIA area, only extended confirmed editors should participate. My strong view is that these three RfCs extended far beyond the ARBPIA area. In relation to CounterPunch, the discussion was sparked by the use of a CounterPunch article (which was written by a non-expert and included several factual errors) as a source for facts about international law in the article Alex Saab, which has absolutely nothing to do with Palestine/Israel. While some of the currently contentious uses of it broadly relate to Palestine/Israel (e.g. Sara Roy, Alan Dershowitz) most of its uses on Wikipedia are totally unrelated, and the examples used to argue for unreliability/deprecation in the RfC related to vaccinations, 9/11, Xinjiang, the Holodomor, Holocaust denial, etc. Similarly, in The Canary discussion (there were actually several discussions in a row, all with overwhelming consensus against reliability), examples of unreliable reporting raised related to the NHS, Syria, RussiaGate, harassment of journalists in Nicaragua and many other issues. The Jewish Chronicle discussion was framed as "Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam", none of which are Israel/Palestine. The examples of unreliability raised related to the British Labour Party and not to the Middle East. In conclusion, I see no reason to retrospectively declare these discussions under the ARBPIA category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Beyond the problem with explaining how brand new accounts or ones that mysteriously only show up to vote on occasion find a discussion on RSN, the fact that it is I/P users heavily socking in these discussions should inform one as to why these should be covered. In the discussions Bob brings up, Icewhiz (5 IW socks in CP, 4 in the JC discussion) and NoCal100 (1 sock each) socks formed a huge chunk of the votes in favor of deprecation for CP ( or maintaining reliability for the Jewish Chronicle. Why might that be? Beyond the obvious seeking to impact a restricted topic area. And in these discussions, where a handful of users can have a huge impact, see for example the 15 users in good standing, including the non-EC users who should be discounted, being used to expunge a source across the encyclopedia, we need to have some level of protection against disruption. nableezy - 17:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I think point C of the motion addresses this: "C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." It isn't possible to protect one section of a page, and applying ECP to a busy noticeboard is not desirable. but admins are free to use other means to curb disruption as needed. More broadly, ECP is generally intended to stop disruption in articles, not to disenfranchise users from participating in discussions. That's what all those other options are for, disruption to discussions can and should be dealt with on a more case-by-case basis.
  talk) 04:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've taken another look here, I am not at all sure why I did not participate in the discussion of that motion or vote on it, but it does appear to say that non-EC users can be excluded from such discussions. I do not agree with that and would've voted against it had I been aware it did this, but I missed it and that is, as of right now, the rule in areas where the committee has imposed ECP.
    talk) 03:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I know this doesn't quite answer the question, but commenting at RSN and making judgments about the Wikipedia-idiosyncratic definition of "reliability" are pretty insidery things to be doing. The occasional legit non-ECP editor could certainly end up there and give useful input, but a lot of non-ECP people in the same discussion at the same time seems unusual. Am I wrong about that? Other than the topic, is there anything about those two discussions that would have attracted broader than usual input? Since this hasn't come up before AFAIK, I'm not sure if this is a general issue, or if these two threads are outliers in some way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to everyone who responded to my question - good to know this isn't the usual state of things. I think the first part of the question has been adequately covered; as for the second, I don't know that we can provide much general insight beyond what WTT and Kevin say below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes to the basic question (as in this diff). I don't think we can answer the follow-up question, any more than we can precisely say what "broadly construed" means. I agree with Zero0000 that the quoted sanction does serve to disenfranchise non-EC editors, and that is indeed the point. Not a very nice way of putting it, I suppose, but it's true. --BDD (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RSP mentions potential Arab–Israeli conflict bias, with no such caveat for CNN. Context will matter, though. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Responding to "Can discussions regarding project-wide topics, such as those to determine the reliability of a source for inclusion at RSP, be sufficiently related to the topic area, broadly construed for ECR to apply?", yes - As OR states, this is an "insider" area, where you would expect people to be EC before finding it and being able to participate helpfully. I cannot prescriptively give a definition of "broadly construed" beyond "if it is related broadly in the opinion of a reasonable uninvolved individual". Worm^TT(talk) 16:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with OR and WTT both in terms of how we are attempting to mitigate disruption (which most definitely continues) and how to interpret broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The first question is easy to answer: If an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", to the topic area, then the ECR applies. The harder question is what counts as "related, broadly construed". It is of course a case-by-case decision, but I would suggest the following general rule: an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic). Again, this should be determined case-by-case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with OR, WTT, & L235. I figure the sensible interpretation is straightforwardly implied by the existing wording, so in my opinion it wouldn't need to be changed. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]