Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:23, 8 June 2024

Revision as of 04:03, 30 June 2024

Line 249:

*{{ec}} I also agree with my colleagues, and am concerned as Ivanvector is that participants here are moving the goalposts inappropriately. It was a policy-backed close of an otherwise good-faith report from an editor who is well-meaning but has not yet met the Extended Confirmed level of participation. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

*The way the restriction is currently worded and the way it is handled in practice (for example granting EC so that editors can participate in case requests) is in line with how Ivanvector closed the AN/I report. The first sentence in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#PicturePerfect666|the report]] establishes that [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles|PIA]] is a major factor of the AN/I report itself, falling within [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Definition of the "area of conflict"|its scope]]. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 19:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

== Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation ==

:'''''[[Special:Permalink/1227762576#Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation|Original discussion]]'''''

{{archive top|result=General consensus among participating Arbitrators is that nothing needs to be done at this point in time. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)}}

'''Initiated by''' [[User:HouseBlaster|HouseBlaster]] '''at''' 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Article titles and capitalisation}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

#{{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation|Contentious topic designation|nopage=y}}

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

*{{userlinks|HouseBlaster}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

*{{section link|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation|Contentious topic designation|nopage=y}}

:*Split into two separate CTOP designations

=== Statement by HouseBlaster ===

The [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] and [[WP:AT|Article title]] policy are jointly authorized contentious topics. Speaking for myself, I have {{tlx|Contentious topics/aware|mos}} on my talk page, because I was (and am) aware that the MOS is a CTOP. I was unaware until earlier today that article titles are also a CTOP bundled with the MOS CTOP, even though I was technically aware of the article title CTOP.

It seems that others are also unaware (in the conventional sense) that article titles are CTOPICs; at <!-- converted to permanent link ~ToBeFree 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC) -->[[Special:Permalink/1224467417#Persistent_WP:IDONTLIKEIT_behavior_in_WP:NCROY_discussions|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions]] it was about three days and 26KB of discussion before Guerrillero [[Special:Diff/1223524246|pointed out]] that article titles are already designated as a CTOP.

The MOS and article titles are related, but distinct, issues. I think they should be split into seperate CTOPs to reflect the fact that they are distinct issues. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

:Regarding {{tq|giv[ing] administrators an awful lot of discretion}}, I think that is the point of CTOPs: they give a lot of discretion to admins in areas that have historically been problematic. If admins abuse that discretion, that is a separate problem. We already have at least one CTOP ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Contentious topic designation|infoboxes]]) which covers particular discussions about an article rather than the article itself. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 15:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

:Regarding Barkeep's comment, I should have been aware (in the conventional sense) that I was indicating AWAREness of article titles. That was completely my mistake. However, I still find it strange that this is a double-topic CTOP, and it is weird that I have to notify people who have never interacted with the MOS about its designation as a CTOP because they are involved in a dispute concerning article titles (or vice versa). <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 15:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Extraordinary Writ ===

Splitting the remedy is probably more trouble than it's worth. But while we're here: there hasn't been a logged sanction under this case since 2020, and that's probably because its scope [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=764818055#Motion:_Article_titles_and_capitalization is so narrow] that most title- or MOS-related disruption isn't covered. Honestly there's a strong argument for just repealing it altogether, although the timing may not be right for that. An alternative would be to expand it to include RMs and the like (certainly there have been plenty of issues there), but that would give administrators an awful lot of discretion. The status quo of having the CTOP cover just the policy/guideline pages (which are often ''less'' contentious than the RMs) doesn't really make sense to me, though, and the lack of use suggests it's not doing much of value. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by SarekOfVulcan ===

I would oppose splitting them, because the application of the MOS guidelines to the article titles policy was a large part of the controversy that caused me to file the case in the first place. See also [[Comet Hale–Bopp]]. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===

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

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes ===

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

*'''Recuse''', obviously. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;he/him) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

=== Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion ===

*FWIW, I'm not actually sure that the sanction from 2020 qualified under the scope of these sanctions. I would ping the admin who placed them but that admin is me (I thought they did at the time but have since come to doubt that). That said I've resisted including these when we've proposed areas to rescind because I know controversey remains. So where that leaves us here, I'm not sure, other than I wouldn't want to split them. In terms of not understanding their scope, the awareness template mentions Manual of Style and Article Topics so I think understanding that scope matters for the person saying their aware? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

*I agree with Extraordinary Writ that splitting this CTOP is more trouble than it is worth. I would be willing to rescind the CTOP for article titles, as MOS pretty much covers the same territory. If there is still controversy in this area as Barkeep suggests, then it seems like the CTOP is not addressing the concerns if it is not being used. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

* If it's an issue of the wording of the CTOP being ambiguous then that should be clarified, but the MoS and the [[Wikipedia:Article titles]] policy both are similar enough that I don't think they need to be split. If there's evidence that the scope isn't working that should be addressed by expanding or narrowing it. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 03:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

* I agree with what Aoidh has said-- I understand why this was filed and the rationale for splitting them, but I think it might overcomplicate things. I think this is a useful CT regime to have otherwise, but I'm open to amending it if there's evidence of issues with the application/scope. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 03:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

* I'm generally fine with the existence of [[WP:CT/MOS]] and no change appears to be happening, so I think this should be closed without action for now. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

* I would also support closing this without action, I think the comments above from my colleagues cover everything. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 15:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

== Amendment request: India-Pakistan ==

:'''''[[Special:Permalink/1231262046#Amendment request: India-Pakistan|Original discussion]]'''''

{{archive top|result=General consensus among participating Arbitrators is that nothing needs to be done at this point in time. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)}}

'''Initiated by''' [[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské Couriano]] '''at''' 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|India-Pakistan}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

#Contentious topic designation

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

*{{userlinks|Jéské Couriano}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

*Contentious topic designation

:*Adding the 500/30 rule ''specifically'' to the India military regiments topic area (defined as [[List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army]] and any page that is or could potentially be listed there)

=== Statement by Jéské Couriano ===

Over the past month or so we've been having members of the [[Indian Armed Forces]] either editing or attempting to create articles concerning military regiments in India. It's only [[WP:AN/I#Coordinated editing around Indian military regiments|recently come to light]] that this is a concerted effort by the Indian Army itself; practically all accounts involved have failed to disclose their connexions and very few have used their talk pages (and those that do tend to describe it as an order from higher up that they [[Superior orders|don't really have a choice but to obey]]). I'm not as concerned about the drafts, as [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT|they're G5-eligible]]. What I am concerned about are the pages already in mainspace that have been targeted by this campaign, such as [[1889 Missile Regiment (India)]] and a host of others; see [[User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam]] for a more complete list. I'm seeking to have the 500/30 rule apply specifically in the Indian military regiments topic area to stymie editing of this sort and to force these editors to the talk pages of the articles to make their case.

:{{ping|Guerillero}} The community has been playing whac-a-mole and finding both older accounts and created-in-the-past-12-hours accounts on a daily basis, which get listed at [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT]] on discovery. The drafts as I said are easily dealt with, but there's little the community can really do to stop the article editing other than roll dice on protection (which will likely be ECP, due to the age and habits of several of these accounts) as the accounts appear to be under orders to violate [[WP:OWN]] and there's no realistic way to predict which ''specific'' article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit. All we know is it's going to be about an Indian military regiment. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] ^{<small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small>} 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by The Wordsmith (ARBIPA) ===

It seems like page protection is already available in the standard set of CTOP restrictions, and the Committee has confirmed in the past that 30/500 is included in that. Protecting such a large number of articles might be slightly stretching the intended limits of what a single administrator can do, but since page restrictions may be imposed {{tq|to minimize disruption in a contentious topic}} rather than disruption on a single page, it seems like it would be valid. Unless the Committee disagrees with my interpretation, I'd be willing to temporarily ECP the necessary pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span>^{<span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span>} 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===

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

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== India-Pakistan: Clerk notes ===

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

*

=== India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion ===

* Has the community gotten a chance to resolve this issue? If not, I am inclined to deny the request --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*I'm not convinced that 500/30 is the right response to this disruption. However, IPA along with PIA and EE are topics where I don't really expect much community attempts at resolution prior to arbcom given the nature of those disputes on and off wiki. So I am open to doing something here. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*While I know we generally protect pages as a result of disruption and not pre-emptively, I think the argument could be made that because of past disruption at related pages, it is not unreasonable to extend that protection to a class of article (in this case Indian military articles). In other words, would ECP across all of the related pages solve this issue? [[WP:ARBECR]] doesn't seem like it would solve the issue because the edits/editors are already being reverted on-sight, and it is really meant more to restrict ''all'' editing to those who have been around for a while. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 20:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*I have to agree with Primefac with questioning the efficacy of this proposed solution. {{u|Jéské Couriano}}'s assessment that {{tq|there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit}} means that short of applying ECP to most or all of the articles in this topic area (which isn't reasonable) [[WP:ARBECR]] doesn't seem like it would address the issue. It would, however, create more barriers to other editors who would like to edit those articles. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*I think I agree with my colleagues above. I am not sure that ECP to a broad number of pages is the solution. I think asking to protect individual pages is the way to go here. I don't think there is much more to do here. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 01:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

:*My opinion is to '''decline''' any action at this time. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

*It's fairly standard [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT|meatpuppetry]] but being carried out on an Indian Army-wide basis. ArbCom intervention seems overkill. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}