Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nicoljaus (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 10 September 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland Motion (orig. case) 4 August 2021
Amendment request: Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal none none 9 September 2021
Amendment request: Nicoljaus, indef topic ban none none 10 September 2021

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127

Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland

Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Wugapodes

The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My personal position is that, if we are going to proliferate the use of 30/500 remedies, then it is best for everyone that they be standardized rather than bespoke. I don't particularly care what that standard is, but my opinion is that it is best to go with the most commonly used and recognized standard which is probably the Israel-Palestine 30/500 scheme. 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to go down the standardization route, I want to second CaptainEek's suggestion and suggest an "omnibus" of sorts. Create a subsection of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement for "30/500 restrictions" modeled after the DS section. This can include the definitions Kevin mentions, the talk page exception, and the specific restriction text Barkeep drafted. Then amend all three cases using 30/500 restrictions to reference "standard 30/500 restrictions" as detailed in the procedures document. 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: You define "Secondary" but I don't believe the motion uses it. You may want to change On pages with related content to something like On secondary pages with related content or change your defined term from "secondary" to "pages with related content". — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

I am under understanding that if the arbitration decision says "article" and not "page" it means "article" and not "page". Which makes perfect sense to me because for example talk pages should not be included in any case, and concerning Wikipedia namespace, the pages there do not obey the same policies as the articles, for example WP:V or WP:N do not apply to the same extent. It is of course up to ArbCom to modify the wording if they wish to do so.

To correct the original statement, GCB reverted a long-standing editor; VM first edit was a revert of a long-standing editor (although the edit they were reverting stood on the page for about two years); the other three reverts were indeed of a non-extended-confirmed editor.

What we also need is to clarify, similarly to PIA situation, is whether new accounts may edit articles which are not primarily related to antisemitism in Poland but contain some pieces or even sentences related to antisemitism in Poland. My proposal would be to state that new accounts are not allowed to make any edits to any articles if the edit is related to antisemitism in Poland, but I believe it is not currently stated clearly in the remedy.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I discussed the above interpretation of the remedy with VM after I blocked them (it was then called wikilawyering), and also in the ANI thred where it was completely ignored.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: I did warn VM before blocking, and we had a discussion, it is just the discussion did not happen to be productive.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: This is ok, but let us not claim that the warning has not been issued. I am sure VM would have said it themselves if this were not the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I provided all the diffs at ANI, my last edit is here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

In addition to the wording at ARBPIA, the WP:GS page which references the general 30/500 rule also says "content". Full text for completeness [1]:

Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. 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 above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce these remedies on article creations.

I bolded the parts where there's some difference. This means that the restriction on non-confirmed users editing "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions" are EVEN MORE stringent than regular articles and article talk pages. One recurring problem since this amendment was put in place is of masses of sock puppet showing up to RfCs and brigading them. And making exceptions for RfCs does create a loophole - a friend of a banned user creates an RfC, then the banned user swarms the RfC with socks and it's really a lot of effort to file SPIs on all of them.

Of course, aligning the Poland-specific restriction with WP:GS and ARBPIA would also eliminate the sort of confusion that led to the recent drama. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: and @SoWhy: - the problem is that there has indeed been disruption by sock puppets outside of article space, either on WP boards (RSN, BLP) or via RfCs. I can compile a more exhaustive list from the past few months (or longer) but that will take time. But even very recently we've had an Icewhiz sock puppet VikingDrummer intervene in SPI to defend other sock puppets start RfC which was then flooded with other brand new accounts, use article talk pages to make personal attacks, vote in RfC. Another sockpuppet/blocked account User:Potugin, tried to use ANI to get their way and to agitate for sanctions, vote in an RfC, and again jumped into an ANI discussion to agitate for sanctions. This is just tip of the iceberg, just from the most recent past. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep this loophole (restricting the prohibition only to articles) then I can 100% guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again. You leave a loophole, unscrupulous banned editors will exploit it. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is "APL"? (and vandalism has always been a daily occurrence) Volunteer Marek 16:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what GCB said. The number of sock puppets in this area is so high that it's simply unreasonable to ask editors to constantly be filling out SPI reports (last one I filed took me 3 hours, which at my usual billing rates would be... way too much. You include the compensation for stress and we talking serious financial losses). The original restriction did work though! The disruption of articles themselves has gone way down. The area has calmed down. But unfortunately there is a kind of a "squeeze the balloon in one place, it gets bigger in another" effect here, as some of the sock puppetry has moved from articles to policy pages, noticeboards and talk pages (via RfCs in particular), as well as some AfDs (though I don't pay that much attention to that last category). Since the restriction was successful at solving (albeit partially) the initial problem, extending it - in line with how the restriction is usually interpreted and how it's applied in other topic areas - makes a lot of sense. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also what Zero0000 said. We know this works from other topic areas. So do it. (seriously we do so many things which don't work or we don't know if they work and here we have one that does work ... yet we're hesitant? Are we afraid of actually solving our problems?) Volunteer Marek 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: two of the three ARCAs in this TA had to do with persistent sock puppetry, right? That is where the disruption in this topic area is originating and an ArbCom case won’t do anything at all to resolve that since you can’t have a case with sock puppets as parties. What would help matters is streamlining this restriction to match up with similar ones in other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel it necessary to note that Francois Robere’s comments regarding “review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action” constitute a WP:IBAN violation since one of the editors Ymblanter blocked is User:GizzyCatBella whom FR has an interaction ban with. For a very good reason. In fact, FR just came off a 48 hour block for violating that IBAN [2]. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that FR is agitating here for someone to overrule the consensus at ANI which was highly critical of Ymblanter’s block of GCB and myself. This is also the proper context in which to understand FR’s “suggestions” for a new (unnecessary) arb case. Volunteer Marek 21:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to encourage everyone to focus on the actual request for clarification - does the restriction cover non-article space, and if no, should it - rather than going off on tangents. In particular, there is little sense in arguing HERE about whether Ymblanter's blocks were legit or not. They weren't, but he's unblocked, however reluctantly, so as long as he doesn't keep trying to persue the matter, I'm happy to let this one go. Volunteer Marek 07:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

- Unquestionably I would urge to include:

AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboard discussions

due to enormous sock puppet activity in these sectors. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example since it just happens as we speak.[3]. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user[4] but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are again, that's the same talk page one day later [5]. This is occurring continuously, every day, on multiple articles. I can present a comprehensive list of talk pages, RfC, etc. affected by newly created accounts/proxy generated IP’s. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


(Collapsed outdated below)

Extended content
500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. (what area? please add "related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland." same as before) On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring. The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

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). (what is paragraph b)? replace with "may be managed by the methods mentioned above") This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc. ("etc." leaves loopholes, please be precise if possible) Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

Please add:

Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.
- GizzyCatBella🍁 09:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating (as of August 27th) - I can see that this is on hold, but I'm just letting you know that distress from the brand new accounts in the topic area continues[6],[7]. Nothing changed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC) See this also - [8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zerotalk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Extended content

I also think there is no real reason to dice it up so finely as to distinguish between pages and articles, which we usually don't do for topic restrictions (like 50/300 in PIA, TBANs, etc.). So I'd support an amendment to change "articles" to "pages". There's the wrinkle about content (portions of pages, such as is the case for the page in question here), but I think the best policy is to say non-EC editors can make edit requests on article talk pages and otherwise can't participate anywhere else. Levivich 03:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To BK's point about a full case: I didn't participate in PIA4 because I had lost confidence in that committee (which was very understaffed at that point) especially in the wake of how the committee had handled the Antisemitism in Poland case, with which I disagreed (very loudly). I have always thought, and continue to think, that a full case is needed to look at the issues in the Holocaust-related topic area. But I also feel I've presented evidence about this to previous committees. The evidence I'd present if there were a full case would be similar to the evidence I've presented in the past (but more recent, with slightly different parties). If that's not the kind of evidence that the committee thinks is relevant then I'd sit out a full case. But if the committee would have a case and wants evidence, I'd present it. I just remember spending many hours last time gathering diffs and such and then I couldn't even get most of the arbs at the time to even comment on the evidence or even address entire issues (or certain parties' conduct). I don't want to waste my time or the committee's time putting together evidence that no one wants to read or thinks matters. I'd be looking for guidance from the committee about what kind of evidence and how it's presented. In the past, arbcoms have been reluctant to provide that guidance, and that's fine, I just wanted to share how I personally felt about participating in a new case. Fundamentally I do think there are editors who need to be tbanned and the community cannot resolve it--it's failed for over a decade--but previous arbcoms have also failed and I'm just not sure if this panel feels like it could be more effective than previous panels. No offense meant by this of course, the panel are all volunteers and what we have now may simply be the best that can be reasonably accomplished by the systems we have in place. I'd just hate to waste everyone's time: in order for a case to be productive, arbcom would really have to have the ability to digest a case that is going to be much larger than normal. Way worse than Kurds or Iran or Rexx in terms of both volume and temperature IMO. It sort of requires a certain level of seriousness of problem in order to justify the work this would present for arbs, for this topic more than most. I think that level is met here and am willing to donate my time to it but I'm not sure how many other people feel similarly (both on and off the committee) and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to sign up for this. Levivich 20:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Ealdgyth's big-picture description of what's going on in the topic area matches my own impressions exactly. Levivich 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision#Comments by Levivich. It wasn't just my section either; there's an insane amount of diffs and commentary on that page. Looking at that again reminds me how much I don't want to do that again and why I don't edit in the topic area anymore. Levivich 03:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded by looking at the last case that I have better things to do with my life than participate in this. Sorry, I withdraw my statements. Levivich 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

I agree with Levi that there's no need to "dice it up." If unexperienced editors and socks are a major problem on these articles, they aren't likely to be a net positive in the other namespaces. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as {{Single-purpose account}}. {{csp}}, {{csm}}, {{Afdnewuser}} and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Out of curiosity, where's that previous evidence you collected that you claim got ignored? I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence by you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: I think your streamlined proposal is good but thinking about WP:BITE and new content, perhaps an encouragement that when admins are exercising judgement about new articles (delete or not), there is option 3, draftifying, which is preferable to outright deletion, might be helpful? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here:

  • In Israel-Palestine, with this definition
  • In Antisemitism in Poland, with this definition
  • For conflicts between India and Pakistan, with this definition

There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)

As for the scope of the remedy, I feel like it's little things like this that makes the general sanctions regimes appear complicated. This is the only one of three authorisations to limit to "mainspace". I think extending the scope for simplicity's sake is worth it alone, given that the covered content in other namespaces is almost certainly very low (both relatively and absolutely). The collateral damage will also be insignificant compared to the collateral damage already caused by having this restriction in mainspace.

I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: PIA4 is short for Palestine-Israel articles 4 (the case: WP:ARBPIA4). APL is Antisemitism in PoLand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple concerns with the proposed motion. Firstly there's the issue of defined terms that L235 pointed out. Secondly, I think it's not really possible or ideal to get the exact text in sync with PIA4, since that case was uniquely curated for that topic area, and introduced (for example) the concept of primary and related content. That kind of restriction is complicated enough by itself and I think it would be better if it weren't proliferated too much. Alternatively, it could just be worded more simply here. If the goal is to keep text in sync, then it's better to move the definition of 500/30 to a separate page (like WP:ACDS) is, perhaps a page for 'standardised ArbCom general sanctions other than DS', and have the actual remedy in the case just be a one-sentence authorisation. These ideas are probably better to look into during your ongoing sanctions reforms, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A better way of wording it might be something like:

Topic-wide editing restriction: Editors who do not meet __(the 500/30 criteria)__ ("the criteria") are prohibited from editing material in any namespace related to ____ ("the topic area").

Enforcement: For articles (pages in mainspace) whose subject primarily falls in the topic area, this restriction may be enforced using WP:ECP page protection. On other pages, this restriction may be enforced using appropriate technical restrictions such as page protection and edit filters, taking care not to frustrate unrelated editing unless necessary. Edits made by editors who do not meet the criteria may be reverted, and editors may be blocked if they continue to violate this restriction after being made aware of it. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit-warring.

Exceptions: The sole exceptions to this restriction are:

  1. Editors who do not meet the criteria may use the talk namespaces to post comments and make edit requests, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc.
Some comments: I asked El C about the deletion portion last year, apparently the admin corps does not enforce that portion in practice, which leads me to believe it isn't really required and summary deletion powers shouldn't be provided if not necessary. The general awareness addition comes down to the idea that users may well not know there is such a prohibition in place on a given page so a block may not be appropriate, but apparently this is similar to the seemingly innocuous suggestion NYB made years ago that led to the current body of awareness law, so take it with a pinch of salt (a better wording may be something like "as long as the blocking administrator believes the editor was aware of it"). In the ARCA about PIA4's RM prohibition, some arbs appeared confused by the "The sole exemptions to this prohibition are:" portion. I don't find that wording confusing personally, but if it confuses arbs it may well confuse others too, so that portion may need reformulating. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: I still think you should split the enforcement portions from the actual restriction. The enforcement provisions are only relevant to admins (minus the "you can revert and it isn't edit warring), and splitting it makes it easier to parse and read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to jc37's concern about the thresholds of ECP. I raised something similar at WP:DS2021 (here). I'd support a change in thresholds too. I don't know if 500/30 has been good to Israel-Palestine; much of the topic area is just a handful of regulars now, whose names I could probably list off the top of my head. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RGloucester

  • @SoWhy: Just a point of clarification, but you seem confused about the meaning of the terms 'general sanctions' and 'discretionary sanctions'. General sanctions are a broad class of remedies that can be imposed by either ArbCom or the community. The reason they are called 'general' is because they apply to a whole topic area, rather than specific editors. Discretionary sanctions are a specific type of general sanction (other types include revert restrictions and article probation). The 500/30 rule is most patently not a 'discretionary sanction', but a type of general sanction. Discretionary sanctions have very specific rules, as described at WP:AC/DS. In any case, I agree that the text at the information page is in no way binding on ArbCom, and should be clarified to reflect the possibility of specific implementation in specific cases. RGloucester — ☎ 12:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: It should be the job of ArbCom to demonstrate the correct usage, rather than reinforce common misconceptions (thus promoting further confusion on this matter), and your comments are therefore not befitting your status as a member of the committee. You might consider reading the history of sanctions on Wikipedia as written by myself, or perhaps consulting the creator of the term 'general sanctions' himself, former committee member Kirill Lokshin. In either case, I would advise that you refrain from making such mistakes in future. RGloucester — ☎ 14:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Your continued reference to the 500/30 rule as a 'DS' is indeed a mistake, and a grave one coming from a committee member. Committee-authorised DS are governed by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, a policy maintained by the committee itself. You might notice that none of the rules mentioned in the AC/DS policy page apply to the 500/30 rule as it is implemented anywhere. The most obvious example of this is that no alert is required to enforce a 500/30 rules, unlike for DS. It's simply a flat rule, like a page restriction. If you, as a committee member, are not even aware of how your own policies work, can you really be fit to adjudicate these matters? I wonder. This matter is relevant in this case, because the confusion that caused this unnecessary incident of stress for a number of veteran editors was directly caused by the failure on the part of ArbCom to establish consistent rules and use a consistent terminology than everyone can understand. Continuing to be obstinate, insisting that 500/30 is a 'DS', despite all evidence to the contrary, is really nothing more than appalling. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Given that other committee members here are repeating this 'DS' terminology, showing a complete disregard for their own policies and procedures, I would like to cite the example of the ARBPIA General Sanctions, which were only established in 2019, and clarified this very year. The ARBPIA General Sanctions, authorised by the committee, include both DS and a 500/30 rule. The decision makes a clear distinction between these two remedies, which are together (along with a revert restriction) referred to as the 'ARBPIA General Sanctions'. 500/30 rules and revert restrictions are not DS, and have never been DS, nor have they ever been governed by the WP:AC/DS policy. They are Committee-authorised general sanctions. Get your act together, please. Confusion like this will lead to people applying the WP:AC/DS policy in places in doesn't belong, leading to even more confusion over procedure. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CaptainEek: Please read my above comments. There are no 'ECP DS'. 500/30 is not a DS, it is a general sanction. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: Great proposal. I do suggest replacing the '500/30 rule' terminology with 'ECP rule' per the other comments here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @L235: In the interest of standardisation, you might consider taking over the community 500/30 rule for India/Pakistan articles (WP:GS/IPAK), replacing it with this new 'extended confirmed restriction', and incorporating it into the existing India-Pakistan sanctions regime. This will go a long way towards cutting red tape, and I doubt anyone in the community would be opposed. If anything, the elimination of all of these overlapping sanctions regimes would be greatly appreciated, I reckon. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

If ArbCom wishes to maintain its relevancy and keep the Wikipedia community active and vibrant, it needs to stop dealing in minutae and start putting its foot down. APL is bleeding editors and admins, people complain about their blood pressure and mental health (!), vandalism is an almost daily occurrence, and you're arguing about namespaces? What are you, the IETF? There are so many things that you could do to fix this, and instead you're putting your finger in the dike. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Ealdgyth said about "Icewhiz remnants". I got this exact impression earlier this week. It's like the TA is being purged. François Robere (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Barkeep49: In the very least you would want to review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action beyond what was focused on in the ANI discussion (option 1: limited block review). Were there "edit warring", "disruptive editing, tag-teaming [and] reverts" (Ymblanter's block comments)? The edits and Ymblanter's action weren't done in a vacuum. I would add to that a COI review, since the removed entry had direct and indirect relevance to the TA and some of its editors, respectively; and a review of the post-block discussions, to understand how they deteriorated from a simple policy question to a someone worrying for their lives. All of these questions have TA-wide repercussions - in other words, this case isn't unique - but it does give you a microcosm through which to view the TA at large.
If you wish to dig deeper and start a full case (option 2: complete TA audit), bear in mind you'd have to gain the community's trust. There's a deep mistrust among involved editors of ArbCom's ability to deal with the TA, owing to its history of inaction; I've heard and said as much before APL, and after APL those impressions grew stronger. If you're to start a full case, a whole bunch of editors need to be convinced that it'll be meaningful; you should be ready to answer any and all of the following questions: is the TA reflective of the overall state of the research, or is it biased in some direction? Are some editors more prone to POV-pushing and tendentious editing than others? To what extent do editors tag-team and coordinate their actions on- and off-wiki? Is the culture of discussion within the TA conducive to building an encyclopedia? Are some editors more likely to "poison the atmosphere" than others? You should be ready to long-term-ban multiple editors, if the findings justify it; no one would accept an "easy" solution like APL had.
I would also suggest several procedural changes to make the proceedings more convenient, effective, and likely to draw a range of editors who would otherwise not participate. If you wish, I can explain on your, or ArbCom's TP. François Robere (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (Updated 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • @Barkeep49: I appreciate the disclosure. If a full case is what's needed to review this block, then I'd support it; it is, as I said, a microcosm of the TA, and I think it could be at effective enough, at least for a while. I still make a distinction between that and a complete TA audit, which is a much bigger undertaking. I've added a couple of annotations above to clarify what I mean by each.
I'll post on your TP tomorrow with some ideas. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

If by PIA4 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland is meant, one reason I did not participate much was I was moving. Quite literally, we were physically moving during the time period. But a much bigger reason I didn't do much with it was the sheer ... tiredness that the entire topic area (of Polish/Jewish history both before and during the Holocaust and the reprecussions of that history in the modern era) elicits in me. It's a cesspit of battleground behavior and the previous attempts (including that case and all the "clarifications" since from arbcom) have failed miserably. About a year ago, it got so bad, I just totally removed ALL the articles in the topic area from my watchlist, except for the main Holocaust article. As I have many of the English sources that could be used in this area, the fact that I've been driven off from it by the behavior of most of the editors in the area should be quite telling. The reason why the arbcom case didn't work was that there was no way within the word limits to possibly present enough evidence to persuade any arbs, and it's not worth the bother quite honestly. Right now, what you have is basically a bunch of editors who blame all problems on Icewhiz while spending what seems like all their time battling the "hordes of sockpuppets" of Icewhiz as well as trying to eliminate all sign of letting any of his edits (or any edits that they think MIGHT be his or might be inspired by him or ... you get the picture) remain in the encyclopedia. Until folks wake up to the tag teaming and battleground behavior and grasp the nettle to eliminate the folks doing that behavior, it's never going to get better. The inability to recognize that there are a large number of sources that are so hopelessly biased that they shouldn't be used ... is just the icing on the cake. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

François Robere, POV is fine, APL is fine, even TP is fine, I suppose. But TA? Comeon! It took me minutes of hard drinking to figure out it meant topic area. Now, granted I'm much slower than your average reviewer of the ARCA (praise be), but for the love of Cow Man, please just write "topic area" plainly. Jeez, I'm trying to be stealth over here. El_C 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a polemic aside, there's an irony that Icewhiz would probably get a medal from the Polish state for all the work he has done to tarnish his side of the dispute. Haaretz, if you read this, your paywall'ing can suck it (really, in the English version, too?). You can learn a thing or two (or three) from Davar. Israel's Paper of record, everybody. Too snobby for ads, that's just lovely. El_C 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
François Robere, it's cool. Last night was reading Ephraim Kishon's sketch that roughly translates to "You Da Man!" (from the 1959 Sketches) and was thinking: 'hey, that's kinda my life.' El_C 12:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella, comments at WPO don't exist in a vacuum. While I appreciate and commend you for the kindness you've shown Ymblanter there (whom as you say "may be reading this"), at the same breath, calling François Robere Icewhiz 2.0, that's out of line. Pouring more gasoline on the flames, I don't like that. And it ultimately helps no one, yourself included. El_C 04:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
François Robere, you know, the place, with the thing. It's like UTRS, but with memes. And with Ming (who is awesome!). GizzyCatBella, thanks, appreciate the redaction. And the COD gunners rejoiced. El_C 11:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Capt. Pronin, legend has it that one day a chosen one will come who'd be able to explain the difference between General and Discretionary sanctions. And there will be much rejoicing. El_C 11:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jc37

This is just about the 500/30 rule

I understand wanting a standard, but if arbcom is going to use numbers to describe trustworthiness, then the numbers in question shouldn't be higher than the trust needed to vote each of you into arbcom:

  • has made at least 150 mainspace edits
  • has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) in the last year

I mean really, 500 mainspace edits are what's required to be an arbitrator. Are we really wanting to set the bar that high?

As for 30, arbcom voters need roughly 60 days. I wouldn't mind if this were moved up to that. - jc37 19:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barkeep49 - It's not like 500/30 is set in stone, which is basically what you are about to do. Though I agree that extended protection could do with an rfc concerning this and other usages. Or does arbcom reserve the right to set / keep those arbitrarily (npi) chosen numbers too? - jc37 20:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(the above has the intended tone of a question - I just re-read and the tone looks a bit snarkier than intended - my apologies). - jc37 20:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Barkeep49 - I have a suggestion then. If this ruling is supposed to mach the extended protection tool. then how about if it is written that way, and remove all text that states "500" or "30". That way the criteria is set to be whatever criteria the community sets it to be (also known as helping make it futureproof).
Let's call this something like: "The standard rule for restricting pages to extended confirmed editors". (maybe "a topic area", instead of "pages"?) Or "The editing in areas of conflict rule" maybe?
  • "All editors are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict unless their account has been extended-confirmed. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, this rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the this rule are not considered edit warring....[etc.]"
There may be better ways to phrase this, but I hope you get the idea. - jc37 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:CaptainEek, how about using "ECR Rule" (or somesuch) instead of "500/30 Rule" ? - jc37 20:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:ECR is available for use for this as well. - jc37 21:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ncmvocalist

I reiterate RGloucester's original comment here too as it is relevant to the incident and clarification. The remedy was clear on its own, but I think the "...exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..." line cited by Volunteer Marek was not unreasonable to cite as an exception either. Volunteer Marek was clear about this interpretation at the outset and that misunderstanding should have been addressed first by the admin. An unequivocal warning was not issued (as I said at the ANI) or more ideally, a discussion that was more conducive to calming a frustrated editor down and moving forward. That is why the community would have reversed the block in any case. I have previously seen AE admin threaten to stop their work if an action isn't supported, but thankfully Ymblanter will not be one of them - in that they behave maturely, even in the face of serious health issues during admin actions, by swiftly taking steps to address the issues caused by the blocks. There is a separate matter raised by Piotrus which Ymblanter hasn't yet addressed at the ANI, but they propose to deal with that after this ARCA is completed.

That just leaves one separate issue here - the wisdom of this 'tailored' rule that came into effect last year. I actually share the reservations held for implementing the rule at all. In spite of this, if one concludes that a rule is required, @Worm That Turned and SoWhy: I don't understand how last year's rule is somehow helpful in alleviating the actual reservations. If the restrictions exist for the article space, why should the participation be allowed on project pages that are not in the talk space? AFAIK, new legitimate accounts will start out in the main space. Additionally, if we take care to remember why DS (a type of GS) was streamlined by AC in the first place, I think we can appreciate why a streamlined 500/30 rule (another type of GS) is more effective in resolving the underlying issues sought to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: That is at the heart of the "separate matter" I mentioned above. Piotrus asked you: "Please tell me - and the community - on which page or pages each of the two editors you blocked violated 3RR (or 1RR if applicable), and please link diffs to the warnings you claimed above to have given them" prior to the block. Your reply was "Let us to postpone this until after the Arbcom at least has decided whether they are going to have the full case or not." Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lembit Staan

The amentment says: methods noted in paragraph b) - What is "paragraph b)"? Lembit Staan (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

Go with Arbpia and 500/30, it works, more or less (if I was going to change 500/30 it would be upwards).Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thryduulf

The motion needs proof-reading - it includes "Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b)" but there is no paragraph marked "b)" (indeed, paragraphs are not individually identified in any way). Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: the text of your omnibus motion has the same flaw as above - it references a non-existent "paragraph b)". Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding the EC omnibus motion, I suggest the following copy edits:

−
For certain areas which the Committee has authorized, new editors are restricted from directly editing to prevent disruption. In these areas, all IP editors and users who are not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] (usually requiring 500 edits and 30 days tenure) are prohibited from editing within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On secondary pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the Extended Confirmed Restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the Extended Confirmed Restriction are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list |1= 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 mentioned in the prior paragraph. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc. |2= Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.{{pb}}For the purposes of this restriction, "primary" shall mean pages on which a majority of the content is within the conflict area. "Secondary" articles are those which have less than a majority of their content related to the conflict area. Pages which mention the conflict area in mere passing, and whose content is not controversial, should ''not'' be construed as under such restrictions.}}
+
New editors are restricted from editing directly in topic areas specified by the Committee. All IP editors and users who are not [[WP:XC|extended confirmed]] are prohibited from editing within the designated area. For primary articles related to the topic area, this prohibition is preferably enforced using extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. For secondary pages with related content, or for primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the extended confirmed restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.{{pb}}The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:{{ordered list |1= 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 mentioned in the prior paragraph. This exception does not apply to any other namespace. |2= Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.{{pb}}For the purposes of this restriction, "primary" shall mean pages on which a majority of the content is within the conflict area. "Secondary" articles are those with less than a majority of their content related to the conflict area. Pages which mention the conflict area in mere passing, and whose content is not controversial, should ''not'' be considered to be within the scope of these restrictions.}}

I did not include the prohibition on requests for comments, requested moves, or other "internal project discussions" occurring on an article talk page, as I'm not clear on the practicality of allowing "constructive comments" in a non-RfC discussion but disallowing them for an RfC, in a discussion on an article title versus a requested move, and so forth. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also urge the arbitrators not to use a term such as "ECP DS". Authorization for individual administrators to devise sanctions of their own invention is distinct from a defined page editing restriction. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WormThatTurned's suggestion to drop the terms "primary" and "secondary": I agree that when feasible, it's better to avoid having definitions to argue over. I do think, though, that it should be made clear that the editing restriction can apply to specific sections of an article and not only to entire articles. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (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.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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

Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Could someone post a link to the page history in question? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In reading through the ANI I found the link to the page history in question: Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think SoWhy does an excellent job of laying out why the DS applies only to articles at the moment. I will think more on whether I would support a change. That said, as there has now been activity about the underlying issue not only at the project page but the article itself since this request has been underway I would strongly suggest all editors, but in particular Levivich, Piotrus, and Volunteer Marek continue their discussion on the Wikipedia hoax talk page rather than continuing to edit (war) about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @François Robere: obviously this topic area continues to be a difficult one. You mention that there are many things we could do. I would be curious to know what options we should be considering. I have a couple thoughts - namely we could expand from articles to all pages or we could open up a full case - but each of those has some drawbacks. I'd be interested in hearing some ideas I had perhaps not thought about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @François Robere: I don't think anyone here (Arb or participating editor) fails to understand the level of persistent disruption that goes on in this topic area. In terms of things that gave me pause about being on ArbCom, this topic area was in the top 3. It sounds like your solution is to do a full case as that's what would be necessary to examine the entire context around these blocks and to see if any long term contributors need to be topic banned. Given the relative level of non-participation at PIA4, I'm a bit reluctant to support that without some broad level of clamoring from current participants. This is the 3rd ARCA in the area in the past 14 months. Are repeated ARCAs better than a full case? I'm inclined to say yes at least at this rate. That said I would welcome your ideas about how ArbCom proceeding could be improved on my talk page - as you may or may not be aware we passed a motion that allows us a bit more flexibility with cases than before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: 500/30 is what it takes to be WP:ECP which ties into the fact that pages can be protected at that level to ensure compliance with the restriction if necessary. The fact that the ArbCom qualification for voting is 150 edits is a fun quirk of Wikipedia decision making, but it's not like 500/30 edits has no connection to broader community practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37: there's no doubt that extended confirmed (and the associated protection) is a place where the community decided it liked what ArbCom had done and followed the committee's lead. At this point I think the community could change the numbers associated with ECP without us, though ArbCom would have to separately vote to change restrictions; I'd suggest getting 8 votes of Arbs is likely to be an easier consensus to reach than to get community consensus to change the numbers. Bringing us back to the matter at hand, as I noted below, consistency, for ease of understanding by editors and uninvolved admin alike, is an important matter to me so I would not be in favor of changing 500/30 just for this topic area and a broader examination isn't something I'd prefer the committee to spend time on at this moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I can't, for good or ill, claim credit for the motion. It's porting over the motion for the 500/30 restriction from Palestine/Israel. Your point about draftication is a fair one but that kind of puts the article in limbo so leaving it to admin discretion - which could include draftication - strikes me as wiser from an arbcom perspective. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there have been previous interpretations to the contrary, I would hold that the Antisemitism in Poland remedy as it stands now only applies to mainspace. ("articles" means mainspace unless the context demands a different interpretation.) However, I'm quite open to modifying the remedy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the same opinion as Kevin. The remedy is quite clear, it's referring to articles only - and I believe from the votes there was a bit of reluctance at the time to put in a 30/500 restriction at all, so it makes sense that the committee wished it to be as narrow as possible. I'd prefer not to extend it, for similar reasons, but if there are still issues happening regularly in the project space, I'd be open to modification. WormTT(talk) 08:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the restriction was passed, NYB (with whom I agreed) reluctantly supported the specific wording out of necessity. The wording was deliberately chosen to only apply to the mainspace. That other cases imposed other DS on other areas is of no relevance. Hence there is nothing to clarify beyond the clear wording of the motion. If a change is required, that can be requested but it needs to be a different request with proof that further restrictions are warranted. For the purposes of this request however, I would argue that Ymblanter acted within their rights to block VM and GCB since the claimed edit-warring exception did not apply to the page in question (VM even quoted the remedy's text verbatim when justifying their revert [9]). Pointing to the wording in WP:GS does not mitigate this fact since we are not talking about community imposed general sanctions but ArbCom imposed discretionary sanctions. Even if, a more restrictive remedy would imho always be override a more general policy page. Otherwise, there would be no way for ArbCom to tailor remedies to specific circumstances. Regards SoWhy 08:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RGloucester: I agree the terms are a bit confusing. GS is usually used to refer to community imposed sanctions while ArbCom imposed sanctions are usually only referred to as DS. The recent example of WP:GS/COVID-19 and the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 comes to mind, especially the point that "general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions" in the motion at WP:COVIDDS. As the discussion about that case request and the motions reveals, most people use "GS" to mean community sanctions, not all sanctions. Regards SoWhy 13:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RGloucester: Usage of terms can change over time. That Kirill had a certain idea when he created the page 14 years ago(!) does not mean that the term still has the same meaning today nor that he has some kind of "power" to define what the term means today. As I pointed out, a significant number of people nowadays see general sanctions as a synonym for community-approved sanctions (which is why for example templates like {{subst:Gs/alert}} use the abbreviation "Gs" despite explicitly only applying for community-sanctions). I don't think any further discussion of "mistakes" in usage is helpful though. I see your point that this has led to some confusion in general, however, I don't see any of that applying in this specific case where the language of the DS in question was clear and the question whether DS are a part of GS or something separate is not of any relevance afaics. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of what is now in effect, I think that we should have a more standard 30/500 sanctions scheme so that we don't have parallel case law. I think applying the previous rules and decisions re Israel/Palestine to this area would make DS more streamlined. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RGloucester That the terminology is so confusing is further reason why I hope to rename it altogether and streamline DS/GS. If even veteran admins and committee members are confused, it is a good sign that the system is broken. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: 500/30 amendment

Replace remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland with the following:
500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
  1. 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, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc.
  2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. I think there are advantages to having our special enforcement actions be as consistent across topic areas as possible and there has been enough evidence presented here to suggest that something more than just articles is needed. This language replicates the current language in PIA. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion
  • Not sure where I stand on this but the motion will need a fair bit of editing – "primary articles" and "related content" are words defined in ARBPIA4 for that case specifically. Also, we've had a hard enough time with those words in ARBPIA4; let's consider using better terms. Bradv made the good point in the previous ARCA that "related content" as defined by ARBPIA4 includes non-content pages (including talk pages), so let's avoid doing that again. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely open to the wording of this. I am strongly biased towards consistency between these two special enforcement actions wherever possible to reduce confusion. So if we don't like PIA's wording I would suggest we should fix it together rather than have the new and improved with this one and the old version in PIA. I think that regardless of whether we expand the scope (which I am also in favor of). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly support that our ECP restrictions should be standardized. My suggestion though would be that we create a section or new page, whose wording applies to all areas with ECP DS. Therefore, a change need not be legislated in several venues at once, but instead at one central place. Perhaps as a section on WP:AC/DS, or a subpage of. For each individual case that needed ECP, we could then have a short and simple remedy along the lines of "The standard ECP DS are applied" CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So basically when we want to limit ECP like it happened here, it would be "Standard ECP apply but only to articles"? Regards SoWhy 17:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy, yeppers! That's the intended point of my motion below: we have a "Standard ECP", but could always tweak it case-by-case CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: EC omnibus

In the interest of standardizing ECP page restrictions, a new Level 1 subheading named "Extended confirmed restrictions" shall be created under Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement with the following text:
For certain areas which the Committee has authorized, new editors are restricted from directly editing to prevent disruption. In these areas, all IP editors and users who are not extended confirmed (usually requiring 500 edits and 30 days tenure) are prohibited from editing within the area of conflict. On primary pages, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On secondary pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the extended confirmed restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
  1. 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 mentioned in the prior paragraph. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, noticeboard discussions, etc.
  2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
    For the purposes of this restriction, "primary" shall mean pages on which a majority of the content is within the conflict area. "Secondary" articles are those which have less than a majority of their content related to the conflict area. Pages which mention the conflict area in mere passing, and whose content is not controversial, should not be considered to be within the scope of these restrictions.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Wugapodes' omnibus solution comment was just what I was looking for. Note the substantive change here is I say extended confirmed, not strictly 500/30. This is part of hoping to future proof it, and also allow for editors who may have EC but less than 500/30. I've also tacked on a bit of a description. Once this passes, then it is trivial to pass another motion that replaces the current text at each case with something like "replace remedy X with Standard Extended confirmed restrictions are applied". I am also open on suggestions for the name. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Discussion

I have furthermore simply removed content from "editing content", as I believe that to be redundant. We already have a list of enumerated exceptions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have furthermore defined primary and secondary, would love some feedback. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do like this omnibus motion idea. A bit of feedback though - as ProcrastinatingReader pointed out above, the concept of "primary and related" content was brought in for PIA, and I'm not sure I want that to creep too far into our terminology. Indeed, the fact we have to define the terminology in the motion, even though it may not make sense to the topic area, makes me uncomfortable. Instead, could we drop the terminology, and simply say This prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), although circumstances may lead to enforcement by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Perhaps absolute clarity is a better solution, but we'll still end up back here, I'm sure! WormTT(talk) 14:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EC omnibus (alternative)

Here's an alternative:

Old version

In order to standardize the 500/30 restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

The 500/30 restriction

The Committee may apply the "500/30 restriction" ["500/30 Rule", "500/30 General Prohibition"?] to specified topic areas. When such a rule is in effect, only extended confirmed editors (registered editors who have made 500 edits and have 30 days' tenure) may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

  1. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
    1. Non-extended-confirmed editors 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. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
    2. Non-extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed is permitted but not required.
  2. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
  3. 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.
  4. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

I'm still not a huge fan of this approach. We would be better off codifying how all of our topic-wide restrictions should be construed. This draft, however, doesn't introduce new terminology and I think is more clear than the current text. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L235, I know this kinda got lost with all the other exciting things happening in ArbLand, but I support your version and think we could probably pass it. The only major change I would suggest is to change the name to "Extended confirmed rule", or something similar, since I don't think 500/30 really captures it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Extended confirmed restriction

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
1. Non-extended-confirmed editors 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. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
2. Non-extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed is permitted but not required.
B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
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.
D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed restriction

7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed.

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:

Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

Above is a second draft of the motion. This may be an improvement on the status quo, but our procedures need to codify even more: (keep in mind I'm writing these kind of off the cuff)

  1. We need to codify better notice procedures, or at least best practices, for things that are not DS. Right now, violating topic-wide restrictions (e.g. 1RR) is blockable even if there is no notice and even if there is no reasonable expectation that anyone knew about it. In fact, there is no standard notice. We should carefully consider how to codify requirements and administrative best practices for topic-wide restrictions.
  2. We use terms really loosely and that can breed confusion and misunderstanding. For example, we use "content" to mean in different places "article content" and "page content", which can cause the same "page vs. article" confusion as we have before us here.
  3. probably even more to do

I don't want these other things to hold up improvements, but we should be conscious that we're not making other things worse when we try housekeeping motions like this. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be curious to poll arbs on whether to include a point "E. Administrators may, in their discretion, grant extended confirmed status to editors who do not otherwise meet the requirements." or some other statement along those lines. This could help infuse carefully-selected productive editors into ECP'd areas at admin discretion – as others point out, 500 edits is a lot for many content-focused editors, and is not a great measure of experience. This may also need community approval, but ArbCom is a major stakeholder on this as we currently mandate 500 edits and 30 days in the remedy (not just EC status). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I've just been around too long, but 500/30 really doesn't seem like a very high bar to me. Have we heard such requests from admins? --BDD (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal

Initiated by Unicornblood2018 at 06:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

N/A

Information about amendment request
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification
  • Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
  • State the desired modification

Statement by Unicornblood2018

I was unblocked with the condition that I am topic-banned from any pages or edits related to (1) China, or (2) new religious movements, broadly construed. And that my topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed. I don't understand why I am actually banned from those two topics in the first place. The one and only topic that I had alot of problems with was Falun Gong. Just like Ben Hurley, our dislike on falun gong has nothing to do with China (politics or people) or even religions. It was purely and solely based on how dangerous the teaching really are. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058

Falun Gong was the only topic that I felt personally conflicted towards and just wasn't able to accept certain editors hiding real info. The edits I had worked so hard to add to Falun Gong article. Was predominately about including their belief that aliens walk the earth, that practitioners were told to have total faith in Li and reject modern medicine if they hope to get better from serious illnesses. And that their (still alive) leader outright claimed to have legit supernatural powers like telekenesis but refuses to demonstrate. Such info is not even false. However I apologise for the trouble I have caused others back then and I have no interest or intentions on editing falun gong anymore. There are plenty of other topics outside Falun Gong that deserve my attention. I really had good intentions to add in real info that others were unwilling to allow the pubic to even be aware about but I wasted too much time on FG.

I wanted to edit china high speed rail earlier today but then realised I actually cannot. And it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to also topic ban me on all religion and china related topics as if implying somehow I had numerous issue with those topics. I don’t. If you want to put a permanent topic block on me for Falun Gong. I am cool with that albeit still not postive on it. But I feel that the editor who put such a wide topic block on me for new religions and china related, did not really take the time to look at the context. I don't go to Tai chi or spiritual Tantra pages and edit mishieviously. I also never had a single dispute or edit war on any china related topic outside of falun gong on wikipedia. The only page that I had lots of disputes over was one topic. (Falun Gong) and even then, I don't think I should be banned from editing falun gong because none of my proposed edits were of bad faith but factual and well sourced.

Why am I today allowed to edit American economic politics, japanese trains, nazis etc but not allowed on Religion and china topics? I think having such a wide topic ban is oddly disportionate since the only topic I have ever had actual conflicts in were on Falun Gong and only that topic alone. P.S - it's honestly confusing for me to actually fill out this request. I am certain that I would most likely and unintentionally done it incorrectedly. Sorry about that in advance if that is the case.

Statement by Username

Statement by Username

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.

Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal: Clerk notes

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

Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: Nicoljaus, indef topic ban

Initiated by Nicoljaus at 10:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive281#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Nicoljaus
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive281#Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [diff of notification El_C]
  • [diff of notification Newslinger]
Information about amendment request
  • Lift or mitigate a topic-ban


Statement by Nicoljaus

In February 2021 I received an indefinite topic ban. My attempt to appeal it ended in failure. Newslinger dismissed my appeal by repeating the unfounded "hounding" charge. The topic ban is formulated in such a way that it covers all areas in which I have ever worked in English Wikipedia [10] and where my contribution can be useful. I ask you to reconsider the appeal and either remove TB or soften it. For example, I can edit and write articles without participating in discussions, with the additional limit of 1RR (which I already have). Well, or let's restrict TB to some really highly controversial topics (most of my edits do not apply to such topics).--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Statement by Newslinger

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.

Nicoljaus, indef topic ban: Clerk notes

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

Nicoljaus, indef topic ban: Arbitrator views and discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1043493344"