Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 108

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Nyttend at 01:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Modified unban conditions


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Crouch, Swale


 * Information about amendment request
 * There's only one clause
 * Please specify namespaces where page creation is or is not appropriate.

Statement by Nyttend
The original unban conditions were clear: C, S can create pages in userspace and any talk namespace, but nowhere else. Now, the conditions are confusing: he can create pages in userspace, any talk namespace, draftspace, and no articles. But what about other namespaces? Is it necessarily a ban violation to nominate an article for deletion, since that requires the creation of a page in project space, or is it all right as long as it's unrelated to geographic naming? What about creating categories and templates if they're unrelated to geographic naming? Please specify the namespaces where page creation is appropriate, or where it's inappropriate, or give us admins other guidance; I've looked through the discussion at without finding any reference to the issue. I don't have an opinion on what namespaces are good places for him to create pages, and I'm not asking for any particular result: I just want this restriction to be clear. Any user who's come back from a siteban will necessarily have a good deal of scrutiny, and if he creates pages in these namespaces, we're likely to see disputes over whether or not they're ban violations; either he ought to be able to create pages in such namespaces without controversy, or he should know that he's definitely prohibited from such creations. Arbcom can prevent confusion/disputes/etc. by clarifying or outright amending their statement in this area.
 * Per his statement below, it would help if you also clarified whether he's allowed to move a page between draftspace and userspace. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Crouch, Swale

 * I don't have a problem with the restrictions including other pages (since that isn't something I really do much anyway), however it would be quite silly to say that I had violated my restrictions for creating an AFD discussion, since they were mainly aimed at page creation, starting an AFD is essentially initiating the opposite. Note that the discussions on geographical NC was lifted in July 2018 and the suspended restriction expired 2 days ago (I removed it). The page creation restriction was originally intended to be just an article creation restriction but it was pointed out that I has previously created quite a few redirects, categories and templates that were up for deletion. I don't think creating pages that are administrative such as POTD, SPI, AFD etc violate the spirit or the restrictions but do violate the letter. However since as noted its not something I'm interested in, I don't have a problem with having the restrictions include all other pages.
 * Do the restrictions also cover me moving pages to and from the draft space from my user space (and moves within the draft space of drafts that I have created) since I might realize that a page I created in the draft space is incorrectly named or might need moving back to my userspace.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 12:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The request in the previous discussion was "page creation" which does essentially mean all pages, though until I have got the missing articles created, I have little reason to think much about other pages. While I don't have a problem with not being able to move within user and draft (since I just add to the user subpage, it does seem a bit silly since I can just create it at the target location anyway. However I'm not pressed on asking for that exception since that would unnecessarily complicate things. Its also highly unlikely that I would need to move an article that I had created since I will have had plenty of time to think about where to create it and most have obvious titles anyway. As pointed out move discussions don't require creating new pages (other than if the article doesn't have a talk page) and my editing doesn't usually require creating project subpages since I'm not active generally in that area.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Other pages in his userspace that are not:" "(drafts of) content intended for the main namespace." "(drafts of) templates intended for use in the main namespace." What was meant by that? were you saying that I can't create drafts for articles and templates in my userspace anymore? You'r first bullet was "Draft articles in his userspace or in the draft namespace" being exempt.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also with changing redirects to DAB pages, shouldn't that be allowed since as pointed out at User talk:Crouch, Swale its just providing arrows when more than 1 title would be at that title (or redirect there).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per restriction 4 "except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace". The subsequent reviews wouldn't have revoked the "any namespace" part. However I'm not really pressed on being allowed to create project pages so I don't have a problem with the restriction continuing to include all pages (obviously I'd like to have the page creation restrictions removed as a whole but I presumably have to wait until July). However do we allow converting redirects into DAB pages, since that doesn't really fall under article creation.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I would assume that I shouldn't convert redirects to DAB pages which is why I was asking here, not that I have converted many DAB pages into redirects though.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So does that mean that I can create pages in any other namespace other than main? and what about DAB pages and redirects?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I would mainly be interested in if DAB pages and redirects could be an exception (but I am not going to push for that so feel free to decline that if its a problem) if people think pages like AFD/SPI/POTD sub pages would be OK, then they could be lifted but I'm not that interested in that since that area isn't my main focus but it may occasionally be useful.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify does this mean that I can create any other kinds of pages (such as categories and templates) or is it only talk pages and "maintanance subpages".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They are both liable to get you into difficulties if you misuse them; however, if we are to see if you can conduct yourself appropriately and within reason, I think it is acceptable that you be allowed to create them as well. It would be sensible to notify me in advance of any such that you intend to create so we can discuss it. SilkTork (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Crouch, Swale)
It seems that few (if any) people will have any problem with C, S creating the following types of page, so they could be explicitly whitelisted. The second last bullet should be included, even if he is not permitted to move any pages currently, such that no amendment to this section is required should his restrictions be loosened before being completely removed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Draft articles in his userspace or in the draft namespace
 * Project space pages required by processes such as AfD or MfD.
 * Other pages in his userspace that are not:
 * (drafts of) content intended for the main namespace.
 * (drafts of) templates intended for use in the main namespace.
 * Redirects automatically created when moving pages as permitted by other restrictions.
 * Talk pages, including talk page archives.
 * The bullets re draft articles and your userspace are complementary: In draftspace you can create drafts of articles. In userspace you can create (a) drafts of articles and (b) pages that are not content / templates intended for the mainspace. Sorry for confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (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.

Crouch, Swale clarification request: Clerk notes

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


 * I've updated the case request so that it includes the wording of the restriction and I have modified the link so that it is now a diff. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale clarification request: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The wording of the motion applies only to articles. In the discussion we decided to look at only lifting one restriction, which was article creation. The discussion then focused on that aspect. Given that our focus, discussion, and wording was on article creation it wouldn't be appropriate to feel it included other forms of page creation. We may have been remiss in not considering that aspect and clarifying it; but for now for the benefit of that clarity, no other page creation is allowed unless and until the rest of the Committee decide to discuss the matter further and specifically lift restrictions on other page creation. As far as I'm concerned I'm quite comfortable in just allowing article creation until the next review in six months, but will look into the matter further if the other Committee members indicate they are willing to do so SilkTork (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As regards page moving in space other than userspace. No, that's not allowed. I would suggest keeping articles within userspace until they are moved into mainspace as part of the AfC procedure. If the article name once in mainspace is seen to be incorrect, follow the move request procedure. SilkTork (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Crouch, Swale, I assumed the intention behind "This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page" was meant to prevent you from turning a redirect or dab into an article or something else, such as a redirect into a dab; though there may be another interpretation. Unless there is further clarity on the issue, I would say that you would be safest in assuming that the only changes in your unban conditions are that you can submit a maximum of one article a week to AfC. If in doubt about something, don't do it or come here for clarification. SilkTork (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I would be ok with moves from userspace to draftspace. Typical preference for AfC is for AfC submissions to be in draftspace rather than userspace, so I don't see a reason to prevent Crouch, Swale from making the AfC reviewers' lives a little easier. I don't see a reason to prohibit the creation of administrative sub-pages such as AfD/MfD noms, since those aren't really pages created for the sake of making pages, they're pages that get made as a byproduct of our other processes. I would not be ok with the creation of things intended to go into mainspace - navbox templates, geographic categories and so forth. I think that's a reasonable distinction. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , G13 also applies to userspace drafts that have been submitted to AfC, so moving submitted drafts back to userspace from draft would be pointless, especially since one can just make an edit to a draft to bump G13 for another 6 months. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, you're right. (I still think bapping it with one edit every six months is a far easier method though, especially if you're planning to keep working on it. But it's no big deal either way.) In any case, I'm still fine with CS moving stuff back and forth between draft/userspace. His issue was aggressively retitling stuff in mainspace that was the issue, not moving between namespaces, so I don't imagine it will be a cause of disruption. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed with SilkTork that this only modifies the article creation portion of the previous remedy, which continues to prohibit Crouch, Swale from page creation more broadly. While I don't have a strong objection to C,S being allowed to create AfD pages and such, it's not something we discussed in the amendment request (nor do I believe C,S requested it) so we would have to explicitly amend the motion. I also would rather he not be allowed to move pages as PMC has suggested—as far as I'm aware, it's no more difficult for AfC reviewers to review drafts in the userspace than in the draftspace, so it shouldn't be an issue (and if it is, he should request another user move the page). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Back so soon? Did you miss us? ;) I really don't care one way or the other about moving between userspace and draftspace; that's mainly a question of whether it's easier for AfC reviewers to deal with drafts than userspace pages. (Is it? I didn't think it mattered.) I also don't have strong feelings about AfD etc., but that isn't a topic that's been raised in past ARCAs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As worded, the restriction doesn't seem to prohibit creating XFDs or other process pages. Doing so falls outside the restriction scope ("to create new articles") and is therefore not subject to the constraints ("by creating them in [etc…]") put on CS' actions within that scope.  If there was any other ambiguity, I simply am not seeing it.   AGK  &#9632;  17:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:AGK, Nyttend's clarification request is because Crouch, Swale's unban wording is: "prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace)." Which says "pages". Our motion says "articles". The clarification is on that point. Now, if we are to say our motion includes all pages, then we create a situation where Crouch, Swale is only allowed to create one XFD page a week after it has gone through AfC. Which is not part of the AfC process. So, as far as the clarification goes, I feel we are safe ground in saying that our motion does not include the creation of any pages other than articles. Now, do we want to adjust that? Unless Crouch, Swale specifically requests us to amend the motion to include creating certain other pages such as XFDs, or enough Committee members spontaneously indicate that they wish to amend the motion, then I feel we can leave that until the next review. User:Crouch, Swale, do you wish the Committee to look into lifting the restriction on creating certain pages? If so, which ones would you like us to consider? You are allowed to create talkpages of articles in mainspace.  SilkTork (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth at this point, I took
 * To mean, a prohibition on creating articles in the main space without first using the userspace or draft space and AFC process, and not that any new pages created would be restricted and would need to undergo the same process. Mkdw  talk 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To mean, a prohibition on creating articles in the main space without first using the userspace or draft space and AFC process, and not that any new pages created would be restricted and would need to undergo the same process. Mkdw  talk 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * AfC reviewers usually move userspace submissions to draftspace before reviewing them, so I think the only way that restriction is consequential is if CS wants to move declined drafts back to userspace to protect them from G13.
 * To try and move this towards a consensus, perhaps we should think about whether we want CS to be restricted from creating pages in other namespaces, rather than if he currently is. Personally I don't see any problem with it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Only if it has an AfC submission template on it. In the past I've recommended that if users want to keep rejected drafts long term, they move them to userspace and remove all the templates. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a positive way of looking at it Joe, however it would require a new motion to amend the wording, and from my reading of Crouch, Swale's responses to my queries, he's not bothered. If User:Crouch, Swale wants to explicitly ask us to amend the motion to allow him to create certain pages which he identifies, then I would be open to looking into that. SilkTork (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale: motion

 * Enacted - Bradv 🍁  22:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)




 * Support
 * 1) I think this clears things up, and allows us to move forward. I see no useful purpose in continuing to disallow Crouch, Swale from creating other pages, as it was his article creation that was the concern. SilkTork (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Mkdw  talk  20:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 02:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  AGK  &#9632;  10:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Abstain
 * Abstain

Clarification request: The Troubles (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Thryduulf at 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request As there are no specific other people involved, I have left notifications at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
 * Talk:The Troubles
 * Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland
 * Talk:Great Famine (Ireland):

Statement by Thryduulf (re The Troubles)
In The Troubles arbitration case the committee authorised a remedy that was effectively discretionary sanctions (this was before standardised discretionary sanctions as we know them today had evolved) and as part of that a general 1RR restriction was imposed. Later, the old remedy was replaced by discretionary sanctions, incorporating the 1RR restriction. However, because of the way these sanctions have evolved the scope of the DS topic area is stated differently in different places and this is causing confusion (see for example Talk:). What I believe to be the full history of the scope(s) and where I found them is detailed at User:Thryduulf/Troubles scope but what I understand to be the differing scopes presently in force are (numbered for ease of reference only):
 * 1) Pages relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner, broadly interpreted
 * 2) [A]ll articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland
 * 3) Pages relating to The Troubles and the Ulster banner (The Troubles)
 * 4) [Page template:ArbCom Troubles restriction is transcluded on] along with other articles relating to The Troubles.
 * 5) All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

British Baronets were formerly part of some of the scopes, but that was unambiguously removed by a previous committee.

I am asking the committee to:
 * 1) Clarify this whole mess by defining a single scope for the discretionary sanctions and sanctions placed under its authority (the general 1RR is the only one I know that will be affected).
 * 2) Formally and explicitly end the restrictions imposed in the related Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine as superceded by the discretionary sanctions authorised in The Troubles case. This is de facto the case anyway, but while tidying we might as well spend another 2 minutes to tidy this as well. (note that the Great Irish Famine article was moved to Great Famine (Ireland) after the case concluded)

Request 1 does lead to the need to determine what the scope should be. In my view, formed following some discussion at WikiProject Ireland and Talk:Great Famine (Ireland) and looking at various articles and talk pages is that there are only two that need considering:
 * A "Pages related to The Troubles, broadly interpreted."
 * B "Pages related to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland." with both geographical and political meanings of "Ireland" being within scope.

The Ulster Banner does not need to be separately mentioned - the Ulster Banner article is quiet and is not even tagged and while the Flag of Northern Ireland article would benefit from continued inclusion in the discretionary sanctions regime it is firmly within either scope suggested above.

The Easter Rising topic area is unquestionably within the scope of suggestion B and is reasonably interpreted as also being within the scope of suggestion A as crucial background to it.

Whether the Great Famine (Ireland) is within the scope of either A or B is less clear, nor is there clear consensus whether it should be - more input than I was able to attract prior to the request is needed here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've been involved with any disputes regarding the term "British Isles" but I can't imagine anything serious that wouldn't be covered by a reasonable interpretation of B. Whether it would be covered by A would be more dependent on the exact nature of the disruption, but if it is completely unrelated I don't think we should be using the sanctions of this case to solve that problem. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While the topic area is relatively quiet at the moment discretionary sanctions are still desirable for at least as long as Brexit is an active political issue as any changes to the status of Northern Ireland or the Irish border could get quite messy quite quickly (history shows that the heat of conflicts on Wikipedia related to real-world geopolitical issues correlates pretty well with the heat of those issues in the real-world). Whether the specific 1RR restriction is still needed is a different question that's independent of what the scope of the DS authorisation is. It could be made narrower, but what that narrower scope should be is not clear (it's tricky to predict what the flashpoints will be), although when this ARCA is resolved I will be (proposing) removing the notification template from the talk pages of most of the few Northern Irish footballer articles it is currently transcluded on (from memory only one of those articles even gave any indication of any political or nationalist activity by the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are conflating two separate issues here (1) the scope of the topic area discretionary sanctions are authorised for, (2) the scope of the 1RR restriction imposed under that authorisation. The aim of this clarification request is solely to clarify what the scope of (1) actually is, not whether the DS regime is still required: it is, and because Brexit is on the horizon now is a good time to clarify it. (2) is a question that cannot be usefully answered until after (1) has been clarified (because the scope of any restrictions imposed under DS must be equal to or wholly contained by the scope of the DS authorisation) and in any case is not a question that requires arbcom - the purpose of discretionary sanctions is to allow administrators additional flexibility to make, adjust and remove remedies without needing to consult the committee each time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While a review might be useful it cannot sensibly happen until after the scope of the DS is clarified, and it doesn't require the Committee to do it - it can be done at AE or even a relevant WikiProject page, while the DS scope clarification does need to happen here. FWIW though I think it would be silly to remove the 1RR at the current time and that setting the scope to A or B above (to match the DS authorisation) would be about right. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent confusion I'm aware of is at talk:Great Famine (Ireland) (this is where I intended to link above but I see now I forgot to include the page name, sorry!), and I've seen other confusion previously but cannot immediately recall where. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm not proposing to remove the 1RR at all (that's BU Rob13's confusion), simply clarifying the scope of the discretionary sanctions it's authorised under and, if necessary, adjusting the scope of the 1RR to match it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading of the intent of Timotheus Canens's statement at Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is that the 1RR is a standard discretionary sanction appealable in the normal manner but a statement making that explicit certainly wouldn't harm. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

letting you know about the suggested motion below in case you have any more comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * re: political and geographical meanings. My intent with this was to make it clear that the restriction covers both the political entity "Ireland" (the 26-county Republic of Ireland) and the geographical "Ireland" (the island) so as to avoid any lawyering about what is in scope or not. I'm all for a better way of phrasing this if you have any suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll think about that suggestion (I've just realised I'm going to be late meetings some friends), but "Ireland" does appear in the phrase "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" and I can imagine someone attempting to wikilawyer about Northern Ireland not being part of the country of Ireland. The "unless otherwise specified" is there to prevent any conflict between the general authorisation and a future restriction that is more narrowly specified - i.e it sets a default but allows for exceptions to the default - if there is a definition at all then this is needed. "British nationalism" and "Irish nationalism" are not ambiguous terms so don't need clarification, whereas Ireland (disambiguation) is a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that anyone would gain any traction with that argument (especially given Ireland (country) redirects to Republic of Ireland, which article describes it as a country) or indeed why anyone would think it would make a difference. I still think it's better to be explicit about having both geographical and political meanings, so I'll leave it for the arbs to decide (but if they decide not to include it then 6a should obviously be numbered just 6). Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving forward with this, and I agree your wording is better than mine. There is just one trivial point though - the numbering of remedies should either be 5 and 6 or 6 and 7 (depending whether you want the first to be a modification or replacement of the existing restriction, I think the latter would be slightly clearer); the present 5 and 7 makes no sense. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggested motion re The Troubles
Per SilkTork's request, here is my suggestion for the salient points of a clarification motion. It needs some introductory text and may need some wordsmithing

Note to the clerks: If this (or some similar motion) passes the scope of the DS authorisation will need to be updated at Template:Ds/topics and Template:ArbCom Troubles restriction as well as the case pages linked. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SilkTork and others: Note I've made a slight revision to point 1 (noted by strikethrough and italics) following Scolaire's comments. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
(B) would be better, in my opinion ... one could argue for the second section to specifically include the use of the term "British Isles", but that will probably be sufficient.

If I remember correctly, the issues with the Ulster Banner weren't particularly on that article itself, but edit-warring to include the Banner instead of the Irish flag / Union Jack (depending on context) and vice-versa on BLPs and other articles that included flags and flagicons. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
I would caution that 1RR may need to be kept in place, during the Brexit process which effects the British/Irish border & thus related articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm for anything, that'll prevent 'edit wars' around this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Per a motion passed this year, the 1RR which is currently in place for Troubles articles is due to the decision by an administrator to impose it under discretionary sanctions. (Most likely it is due to this log entry by User:Timotheus Canens in the fall of 2011. The idea of a blanket Troubles 1RR didn't originate with him, it used to be a community sanction before that). So, if anybody thinks that the blanket 1RR should be adjusted they could (in theory) appeal it at AE. Personally, I can see the advantages of single-page 1RRs that could be applied by individual administrators.

According to Canens, the scope of the case is "..reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.." In my view, this is an adequate description of the scope and I wouldn't advise the committee to get really specific as to which articles are in or out. Admins shouldn't take action unless the nature of the edits suggests that nationalism is at work in the minds of at least some of the editors. Modern nationalism can cause problems with articles that seem tangential, as when editors who are warned about WP:ARBMAC get into wars about Alexander the Great, since the word 'Macedonia' occurs there. Yet the ARBMAC decision did not mention our article on Alexander the Great, nor should it. Even so, the ARBMAC sanctions would reasonably apply to any nationally-motivated editing of that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Scolaire
I have nothing extra to bring to the general discussion. It was always my belief that the scope of the sanctions should be B, and this seems to be the arbs' view as well. I would just note that, in the Famine article, there was within the last week. The historiography of the famine is still very much a battleground between Irish nationalists and British nationalists. The article has had a Troubles restriction template on the talk page since 2009. I don't see any point in removing it now. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you want to comment, given it is one of 's two questions. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Ireland' has the standard geographical and political meanings" a phrase that has commonly been used in the past? It's not clear to me what it's saying. Where are the standard meanings posted and who set the standards? And is there a political meaning that's different from the geographical meaning(s) – one that includes Boston, Massachusetts or Celtic Park, Glasgow, for instance? If there is no bureaucratic reason for having this, I would leave it out. If there is, I would rephrase it so it is unambiguous. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Simplicity is the key to clarity. I suggest Ireland' refers to both the political entity (also known as the Republic of Ireland) and the island of Ireland." I can't imagine anything that might be covered by "unless explicitly stated otherwise", so I think you should leave that out.  Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, your proposed wording does not have the word "Ireland" anywhere, so is it necessary to define it at all? It refers to "Irish nationalism", which is an unambiguous term. If you're going to define "Ireland" (for purposes of wikilawyering), should you not also define "Britain", which has even more possible interpretations? Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your revised wording nicely illustrates how adding layers of complexity can have the opposite effect to that intended. For many people, Ireland the island is Ireland the country – a country that is partitioned between two jurisdictions. Wikilawyers could have a field day with that! The point is, it's not needed. Your Remedy 6a says, "all pages related to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly interpreted" (emphasis added). Obviously, and by any standard, a broad interpretation of "Ireland" would include both the entire island and the 26-county state. Clear as day. 6b is not needed. Scolaire (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the ambiguity in the word "country" in regard to Ireland. Building ambiguity into a "clarification" makes no sense. The word "state" is used exclusively in the Irish Manual of Style. It was also the word used in the 2009 Poll on Ireland article names authorised by Arbcom, and in any number of discussions on WT:IE and WT:IECOLL. If you're going to go ahead with 6b (which I still think is just wordiness for the sake of wordiness), please change "country" to "state". Scolaire (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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



The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Before we do anything here, I would invite views on whether the 1RR in this topic area remains necessary. Is there still active disruption that warrants applying 1RR to an entire topic area indefinitely? Can that be reduced to just those pages actively undergoing disruption, as is typical? ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent point about Brexit. It may be worth holding on this request for a couple weeks to see if that situation changes in light of May's defeat in Parliament. In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on fully overturning the topic area wide 1RR (rather than providing it with a new scope) in favor of encouraging uninvolved administrators to apply 1RR to specific pages at their discretion as disruption occurs. I think that would be the preferred route so long as the number of articles facing frequent edit wars is relatively small, say, no more than a few dozen. Could you comment a bit on that? I'm not set in that view right now; just trying to understand exactly what's going on to form a comprehensive opinion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not misunderstanding your request. I just think a review of the 1RR is worthwhile at the same time as we're reviewing the discretionary sanctions. To my knowledge, it's the broadest sanction ever imposed under DS, and it's persisted for quite some time. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This case played out while I was inactive on Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with the history., can you point to an example or two of the confusion? (Your link isn't working, and probably I'm being unobservant but I can't find which discussion you meant to refer to.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a sensible request. Of the two options I feel Option B seems to more clearly cover the areas of concern, though "broadly construed" should be applied. I'm comfortable leaving 1RR in place as I'd prefer users in a contentious area to use more of the discussion and negotiation style of editing and less of  the blunt and inflammatory style. The question of who is procedurally responsible for the current 1RR and can therefore lift it seems a bureaucratic mess, but if we want a separate formal ruling (for clarity) then I'm comfortable with clarifying that the current 1RR is within the jurisdiction of AE admins to lift or amend as appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support bringing Great Irish Famine under The Troubles. We need a motion to formally enact Thryduulf's suggestions., as you know this area well and have given this matter some thought, what do you suggest would be appropriate wording for a motion?  SilkTork (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf. Let's let it sit for a few days to invite comments. SilkTork (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Option B seems appropriate to me. Thryduulf has a good point about Brexit; it would probably be a bad idea to lift the 1RR at this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say go with the 2nd option in this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B sounds sensible. Unfortunately I don't see this becoming an uncontroversial topic area any time soon. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with option B. Brexit and the backstop issue between the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland border will undoubtedly invite consideration controversy now and in the days to come. I would not want to remove the 1RR or even trial it until the situation stabilizes. Mkdw  talk 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Troubles: motion

 * Enacted - Bradv 🍁  01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Enacted - Bradv 🍁  01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed; this is based on the motion drafted by  above, with some modifications and rewording. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) WormTT(talk) 10:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) SilkTork (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  18:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 02:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  AGK  &#9632;  10:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Belated support. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Abstain
 * Abstain

Amendment request: Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Imalbornoz at 00:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping (specifically, regarding the Gibraltar case)


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) 6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded


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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Wee Curry Monster
 * Kahastok


 * Information about amendment request
 * 6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded
 * Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is reinstated;

Statement by Imalbornoz
Point #8 of the decision: “In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.”

Since November 2018 there has been disruptive editing from the users involved in the Gibraltar case:
 * Systematic tendentious editing from User:Wee Curry Monster [content reverted per WP:OUTING].
 * User:Kahastok ([content reverted per WP:OUTING], and who is mentioned in WCM’s user page as his “mentor”) has also edited tendentiously in several occasions and supported WCM’s edits.
 * I have edit warred (within 3RR) and lost assumption of good faith.
 * We have discussed for >2 months, covering the Gibraltar talk page with walls of text and probably scaring away uninvolved editors.

The focus of discussion: During Gibraltar’s capture in 1704 there were very notorious (at the time) events of rapes, plundering and defilement of Catholic churches; after the surrender the population was only allowed to stay if they changed their allegiance to the invaders’ faction; 98% of the 4,000 Spanish population fled, most of them forever, and settled up mainly in the rest of the Gibraltar municipality, which would later become “Campo de Gibraltar”; they took with them the city council files, historical symbols, etc. and kept the legacy of Spanish Gibraltar. These are facts mentioned by all relevant sources. They have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claims (in the UN’s committee for decolonization, for example), and aren’t comfortable for British nationalists (none of which should affect Wikipedia). WCM, with Kahasok’s help, has been removing these facts from Gibraltar articles.

Antecedents (notice repetitive behavior):
 * 1) There was a 2 years discussion about the exodus of Gibraltarians, resulting in sanctions.
 * 2) *WCM’s tendentious behavior (summary:; examples:) caused the original Gibraltar case, and received a 3 month ban.
 * 3) *After the 3 months, under the DS, he was also subject to a 0RR restriction.
 * 4) *Later on, also within the DS, WCM, together with Kahastok, myself and Richard Keatinge were placed under restrictions for almost a year and a half, until WCM appealed and restrictions were lifted on a trial basis.
 * 5) During the 1.5 years of the restrictions, less involved editors copyedited the Gibraltar related articles and their edits have remained essentially untouched as the consensus text for 8 years until last November.
 * 6) Eventually, the DS were lifted by the decision mentioned above. For years, myself and Richard Keatinge remained mostly away from Gibraltar related articles, and WCM and Kahastok didn’t essentially change the content that had been developed by other editors.

Since November 2018, Wee Curry Monster, with the help of Kahastok, and some “good guys” in WCM’s list, has been editing tendentiously across several articles the specific issues involved in the Gibraltar case, removing facts that are supported by all secondary sources, using arbitrary excuses (first ignoring previous consensus, then arguing inaccuracy, then copyvio, “excessive quotes”, opposite consensus…) and rejecting dispute resolution.

Examples of tendentious editing:


 * 1) WCM and Kahastok removing the information about the capture and exodus in the Gibraltar article:
 * 2) *WCM reverting a proposed edit, but also removing information about the destination of the exodus (Campo de Gibraltar) that was included in the consensus text.
 * 3) *Kahastok and WCM pretending it wasn’t the consensus, so BRD didn’t protect it, and removing the information about the exodus; notice WCM’s comment: “rv seems you still don't get WP:BRD - irrelevant information removed” and Kahastok’s “Undid revision 873516065 by Imalbornoz (talk) per WP:BRD. Please discuss on talk” until they finally accepted to discuss.
 * 4) *Pretending their edit was the consensus.
 * 5) *WCM, now with the excuse that the sentence was inaccurate. The sources say 98% of the population (all 4,000 except 70) left, and most of them to “Campo de Gibraltar”], and the sentence said “the population left and settled in Campo de Gibraltar”.
 * 6) *WCM again, this time arguing that the consensus text was a copyvio.
 * 7) *WCM now tagging for “excessive quotes” and copyvio
 * 8) *Kahastok removing mention of the destination and “exodus”. Notice how he mentions “non-unanimous consensus”
 * 9) *WCM deletes all mention of the population leaving(!) because “there is no consensus” He prefers that the article doesn't mention that virtually all the population of the city changed in 1704(!!!!!), something any source considers VERY relevant
 * 10) They talk about “non-unanimous consensus”, while there were 3 editors who mentioned reasons to include some information they were removing vs WCM, Kahastok, Apcbg (in WCM’s list of “the good guys”), ThomasW and IdreamofJeannie
 * 11) WCM removing the information from “Disputed status of Gibraltar” article (notice the comment: “ce for grammar and trim”), “Gibraltarians” (with the excuse that the episode was cited in a different page of the source) (because of “extensive quotes”: “reluctantly revert as editor is unnecessarily adding large chunks of text that risks a copyright violation”)
 * 12) WCM removing information in “Campo de Gibraltar” article (tagged as a “minor” edit)
 * 13) A clear example in “Capture of Gibraltar”:
 * 14) *WCM adds many details
 * 15) *Removes mention of the atrocities during the capture
 * 16) *Includes something not relevant in most sources like “Rooke complained in a letter home that the Spaniards were so exasperated against the Alliance that ‘they use the prisoners they take as barbarously as the Moors‘”(!)
 * 17) *Adds very extensive quotes; whereas he removed information in #3 because of “extensive quotes.” Conversation(?) about this inconsistency:
 * 18) Rejecting discussion and assuming bad faith
 * 19) Rejecting, over and over, a RfC like the one was proposed in the discretionary sanctions and telling me to “drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass.”

They aren’t repeating the extreme verbal abuse that got WCM banned, nor do they ignore 3RR. They just keep pushing their POV:
 * Ignoring BRD and opposing editors’ opinions and pretending their text is the “consensus.”
 * Using multiple excuses for their edits that “sound” right to uninvolved editors but are inconsistent (only consistent with their own purpose of removing certain episodes).
 * Avoiding RfC, which in combination with long discussions that “scare away” uninvolved editors, keeps external opinion out.

Answer to Rockysantos
@Rockysantos, although there was no census in Spain before Floridablanca's in 1787, the consensus in secondary sources (Maurice Harvey, George Hills, Stephen Constantine, Isidro Sepúlveda, Peter Gold...) is that at the time of the capture there were around 4,000 inhabitants (1,200 households) and only 70 individuals stayed, and in any case all sources agree that most of the population left and only a few individuals remained. You can take a look here. - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Drmies, Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok
I was not aware of the problem about outing. I knew WCM had changed his user name but I didn't know it was off-limits to mention this when referring to past actions (in fact, I thought it was necessary to allow other editors to understand old diffs). The same with Kahastok. Please accept my apologies.

Regarding WCM's talk page, I have used it as little as possible and always with a very civil and constructive approach. Please, Arbcom, check my comments in WCM's talk page here, here and here. I have looked for alternatives to contact WCM and solve things out, such as the only e-mail I have sent him and which is not offensive at all (if you want we can post it here or send it to the Arbcom). Sometimes it's necessary to discuss things outside of the articles' talk pages.

I have always encouraged WCM to write in my talk page, in spite of his very extreme verbal abuse, personal attacks and vandalism on my talk page in the past. I have really tried to understand him and reach out to him, but I think some kind of battleground mentality has got in the way. That's why I think an arbcom guided RfC would be a good way to move forward. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * WCM and Kahastok call my diffs “selective” and “misleading”. I would be very naîf if I thought that a “selection” of diffs could mislead the Arbcom: one of the good things about wikis is that we all leave a trace, and anyone can check whether what I explained is true or not.
 * I find it pretty ironic that WCM and Kahastok say I have a “battleground” mentality, taking into account that they are the ones rejecting dispute resolution, together with WCM’s history of bans and sanctions, the very aggressive comments he has made to me and other editors in the past, the fact that he keeps a list of “good guys” (that he periodically updates depending on whether someone has annoyed him or not). - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to MarshalN20
@MarshalN20, of course I have not accused British editors of being POV pushers. As a matter of fact, during past disputes Richard Keatinge, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick were very neutral and supported the inclusion of the facts that WCM and Kahastok have removed. I am a very great admirer of British culture (that's one of the reasons I made the effort to learn English). If you forget about the persons and focus on the edits, you will see they are removing information which they said was "Spanish propaganda", but which is factual and supported by all sources. They have done that 8 years ago and now, with inconsistent (even contradictory) arguments, ignoring other editors' comments and rejecting dispute resolution. On the other hand, they are including information that is much less prominent in reliable sources. I have been very patient with WCM (even when he made very aggressive personal attacks in the past I did not ask for Arbcom and allowed him to reconsider his attitude). But after 8 years my conclusion is that, in this specific case, I don't know whether out of a nationalist POV or personal animosity towards me, he has been a POV pusher. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Bryan Henderson
I totally agree with Bryan Henderson. In fact, that's precisely my point:
 * The flood of discussion between WCM, Kahastok and myself keeps other less involved editors out (except maybe some editors who have some affinity with either one of them - in the case of WCM and Kahastok the ones who edit with them in Falkland Islands, British empire, Imperial vs metric systems... articles; nobody in my case given that I don't edit very frequently).
 * Unfortunately, meanwhile, WCM and Kahastok have been removing information with, in my opinion, a POV approach (please take a look at the articles and see where information has been removed or reduced to a minimum regarding this episode).

Maybe WCM and Kahastok are right. Maybe I am. Maybe I am biased, or maybe they are. In any case, we won't know what other editors think if we keep acting this way.

My analysis for myself is: I can
 * (a) leave it be and let WCM and Kahastok do what they want with the articles (which in my honest opinion is POV)
 * (b) keep discussing and hope that some editor will pay enough attention to participate (which was successful in the past but is very tiring in the long term)
 * or (c) ask for Arbcom intervention to bring some rationality into the discussion.

The fact is that the period of best advance in Gibraltar related articles was when the three of us were away from them (during the last enforcement of the DS).

That's why I am asking to reinstate the discretionary sanctions to stop us from disrupting the discussion and start some approach to include less involved editors. Maybe with the RfC that was recommended in the last enforcement? - Imalbornoz (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Richard Keatinge
Richard is a rare example of an editor who had no previous involvement in the article and one day payed enough interest to participate, bringing a neutral point of view into the discussion for months. His comment about "operating oneself without anaesthesic" is expressive of what it feels like to discuss in the Gibraltar article environment with WCM and Kahastok. He will probably never edit in this area again, as I haven't for years. The same happens with other users like The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml or Cremallera. Something needs to be done.

Summary

 * I think my answers to Bryan Henderson and Richard Keatinge above pretty much summarize the situation regarding how uninvolved editors are discouraged from participating in the discussion by our (WCM, Kahastok and my own) flood of comments.


 * Regarding WCM and Kahastok’s edits, you don’t have to trust my “selective” (like they call them) diffs. It’s pretty easy to see that there was (for 8 years) a description of the exodus of Gibraltarian population in 1704 (an episode mentioned in all relevant sources and considered by the vast majority as pivotal in Gibraltar’s history) and during the last two months WCM and Kahastok have managed to remove it using different excuses (some of them contradictory). Crystal clear: see the current version of the article after WCM and Kahastok removed the exodus episode and a sample of the last 8 years including it. The same has happened in several Gibraltar related articles.


 * WCM and Kahastok’s repeated rejection to go through dispute resolution and, more specifically, RfC is also a very clear fact.


 * Regarding WCM’s, Kahastok’s and my own actions, I would be grateful to receive feedback from the Arbcom about our tendenciousness and whether or not we should be sanctioned.

Finally, I honestly think that Gibraltar related articles need some fresh air with the input of new editors. I think the articles will be very biased if we let WCM and Kahastok “own” them with the things I’ve seen this last couple of months. The best way to move forward, I think, is to reinstate the discretionary sanctions. I think it would also be a good idea to start a series of “controlled” RfCs (meaning someone should stop us from overflowing other editors with our comments) regarding several issues in the articles (the first of which would be the exodus episode). The other option is that (as Kahastok has repeatedly proposed) I “drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass.” ;o)

Thank you very much for your attention. – Imalbornoz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to arbitrators
I would like to point out that my request deals with the behaviours shown by WCM, Kahastok, and maybe myself, not the contents.

If the Arbcom sees our behaviours as problematic but has doubts about the age of the original case, I think there will be no problem to have evidence showing the continuity in behaviours, editors and other circumstances.

But if they see no issue about behaviour, then I guess I will have to recognize my perception was wrong and accept that this request is declined.

In the case the discretionary sanctions are not reinstated, I don't think I will have the time or the energy to start (again) a dispute resolution process without the DS protection. The last time, it took two years to find a way out of the disputes in the Gibraltar article, with several frustrated mediators, aborted RfCs, and tens of thousands of lines in article talk pages (and in the end, the solution was to have WCM, Kahastok and myself out of the articles for 1.5 years). If this is the scenario, I guess I will be happy to leave the Gibraltar related articles in the hands of WCM and Kahastok, like Richard Keatinge, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Cremallera, or Ecemaml, and wish the best luck to any editor who tries to build NPOV consensus in that area of interest.

Anyhow, whatever the result of the Arbcom, I thank the arbitrators for taking their time to look into this matter and offer us a way out of the deadlock. - Imalbornoz (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, Rob 13, SilkTork and RickinBaltimore. You are rignt about the two discussions. I am not as concerned about the discussions (which have been civil enough) as about the edits by WCM and Kahastok in articles space (not only Gibraltar) with things such as not accepting the previous consensus while we discuss (as per WP:BRD), arguing arbitrary (fake) excuses for the removal of whole episodes of History (not just wording) and rejecting dispute resolution.


 * Regarding the dispute resolution you recommend, I know that if we have a content dispute we should ask for community opinion, then ANI if necessary and then Arbcom. My point is that the same three editors already have gone through all those steps, and dispute resolution didn't solve anything until (i) the Discretionary Sanctions forced WCM and Kahastok to stop boycotting the dispute resolution process, and (ii) finally the 3rd enforcement took WCM, Kahastok and myself from the article for 1.5 years, freeing it for the community to edit a consensus text.


 * I will try to explain why I say that. I’m afraid that the only way for you to understand a problem that spans 10 years is to go over the story. I will try to keep it as brief as possible. Please read it before you completely decline this case:


 * The same editors with the same behaviours and dealing with the same content...:
 * compare these edits from February 2010
 * this one from October 2010
 * and these recent ones


 * ...went through dispute resolution and Arbcom for two years (notice that myself, Richard Keatinge, WCM and Kahastok, and very few other editors, were in each and one of these discussions)...
 * 1st Medcab in August 2009 was rejected by Kahastok, WCM and other 5 “British nationalists” and only accepted by me and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (who is British but without a British nationalist POV). See where Kahastok rejected the mediation
 * 2nd Medcab in October 2009 had one mediator being burnt out after 2 weeks
 * The same Medcab with another mediator in November 2009 helped us reach a partial agreement in some issues (which WCM and Kahastok have eventually deleted from the article anyway) but did not solve the issue we are discussing now (destination of the exodus) which was further discussed for several months.
 * As a result of those discussions (mainly about the capture and exodus) and WCM’s tendencious editing (and extreme verbal abuse against me and other editors), the Gibraltar Arbcom case was opened in March 2010, the DS were enacted and WCM was banned (under his previous name) for 3 months in May 2010.
 * There was a period of peace for 3 months (during WCM's ban), until WCM reverted the previous consensus about the exodus (and self-governance) in October 2010
 * As a consequence, under the DS, WCM received a 0RR in December 2010
 * We agreed to start a 3rd Medcab in January 2011 again about the destination of the exodus. It ended up without result (I don’t recommend it, but you can see the long and fruitless discussion here )
 * As part of the 3rd Medcab, the discussion regarding the text about the exodus was taken to WP:NOR Noticeboard, with only one outside editor participating in the discussion and only suggestions on how to structure the discussion
 * There was another entry by WCM in the same noticeboard, without any answer
 * More discussions in several talkpages, until WCM and Kahastok saw that the consensus was not in they favor, they started an Enforcement case against me under the DS in April 2011 and the three of us (plus Richard Keatinge) were sanctioned for 1.5 years.
 * The community edited the Gibraltar articles free from our negative influence ;o), including the destination of the exodus among other things, for 1.5 years. Then WCM and Kahastok returned, respecting the consensus text for 6 years.
 * Since last November WCM and Kahatok have been removing the consensus text, repeating the same behavior about the same content (please see my first statement in the request), only without the restrictions DS, removing whole episodes in several articles and rejecting, again, dispute resolution (like in 2009).


 * I think that now, without the DS, WCM and Kahastok will keep rejecting and/or boycotting any attempt to bring uninvolved editors through RfC, noticeboards, or mediation, like they did in 2009 when there were no DS, and we will start the process all over again.


 * I hope you understand now why I think it will be a waste of effort from editors, mediators, admins, … to start this process all over again without DS.


 * I think reinstating the discretionary sanctions and imposing a controlled RfC (in order to involve the community wihout us disturbing the discussion) would help solve this dispute saving us all hundreds of hours.

Thank you. - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * AGK, thanks for your answer. I understand that there are concerns about the editorial process, but also procedural doubts about whether ARCA is the place to take decisions about this.


 * Regarding procedures, I have a question: Wouldn't it be possible to take a decision in this case taking into account that Point #8 of the DS housekeeping decision established that "In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page" (the bold format is in the original text)? Otherwise, in which case would this point apply?


 * In case it's not possible to reinstate the DS, it would be very helpful to receive some guidance, taking into account the previous history of the dispute and the Arbcom decisions taken, as to what would be the best procedure to help us solve this issue trying to save time from mediators, admins, and editors.


 * Thank you very much again. - Imalbornoz (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster
I have sought advice from my mentor on how to deal with this editor. I have followed his advice scrupulously and avoided any repeat of any behaviour that is sanctionable. This filing seems to be an abuse of the system for this editor to get his own way in a content dispute. He has adopted his usual tactics of flinging enough mud around and hoping it will stick.

On my user page, I list a number of editors I admire. These are editors I admire for the quality of their edits not because of personal association. I have for example held opposing positions to that of and  and I am sure  would acknowledge we frequently disagree on matters. I consider it a gross and egregious presumption of bad faith that he would malign editors such as these in an attempt to smear me. (To answer your question Drmies, you've been on the list since I created it in March 2015, except for a brief period when we annoyed each other).

It is apparent that Imalbornoz has been following me to different articles, in many cases articles he has never edited before. In each case, he has simply reverted my changes, with the comment I have to seek a consensus with him before I am allowed to make any changes. Examples:, , ,.

Sometime ago, I requested Imalbornoz did not post to my talk page. I did so because I found that his postings on my talk page were not productive and mainly accusing me and other editors of misconduct. He has repeatedly ignored that request. Examples ,, ,. Further, on 15th December I had cause to remind this editor not to contact me by email as he had sent me rather an offensive email that I immediately deleted.

I have also noted that he has badgered any editor who has commented. Examples:, ,.

He also badgered editors where I have sought policy guidance, trying to get them to change their advice. Examples:,.

The talk page history is informative, this editor has completely dominated the discussion, deterring outside comment with walls of text. Compare this with my own minimal replies to this editor. His behaviour is characteristic of WP:BLUDGEON.

I previously edited using my own name. Due to off-wiki harassment, I changed my username and have avoided using my own name since. Admins are fully aware of this and any past sanction is registered against my current username. Imalbornoz is fully aware of this, knew there was no need to refer to it and yet has chosen to WP:OUT me once again. I have requested my previous username is redacted.

I have more to comment but that would probably be more appropriate for an SPI report I am considering filing. WCM email 18:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to question from Rockysantos
To answer 's question. I am not aware of there being any census data, the figures quoted are estimates based on eye witness testimony and vary between 4-6000. WCM email 18:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Misleading use of Diffs
Can I ask that anyone considering the OP use of diffs be aware that they are very selective and are designed to mislead. e.g. in Capture of Gibraltar he claims I've removed mention of what he terms "atrocities". This diff shows this to be untrue; this is my edit with extensive quotations and sources concerning precisely this topic. I also ask you to consider his use of none neutral language. All I did was move mention to a more logical chronological order, expanding it to represent the range of views in the literature. Yet he's presenting a diff as if it were permanently removed. WCM email 19:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Another example he claims I'm removing my edit because I want to remove all mention of the events of 1704. In Talk:Gibraltar I repeatedly state I don't want to and it was removed after his insistence that there is no consensus for it. WCM email 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Bryan Henderson
I thank for his comments and would like to add a small response. I have deliberately tried to keep my comments to a minimum to allow other editors to comment. I have also tried to focus solely on content. However, I find it difficult to avoid responding when you have an editor repeatedly demanding you reply on unrelated matters, ,. It's also difficult to avoid responding when an editor is making untrue statements about your editing history e.g. naming me as an editor responsible for an edit when I'd already pointed out I was not.

If you feel I've deterred you from commenting I would like to apologise and assure you that was not my intention. WCM email 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Richard Keatinge
I think it's helpful to remind arbcom of Richard's comment that he only reverted my edits previously for a giggle.

I am requesting that both Richard Keatinge and Imalbornoz are admonished for comments about the motives of other editors. I am tired of the accusation by both editors that Kahastok and I are suppressing information, which they have been repeating for nearly a decade. This repeated demonstration of bad faith cannot be allowed to continue, if this is not addressed they will be emboldened to continue being uncivil and generating a poisonous atmosphere.

One only has to look at my own editing history to instantly see this is untrue. Examples User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN, User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar Sandpit, History of Gibraltar, Capture of Gibraltar e.g..

This was a recurring statement leading up to and following the arbcom case ,, despite rebuttals from literature and. As was accusations that editors were suppressing information.


 * Therefore, WCM and want to apply inconsistent criteria to the text of the article: REMOVE facts that -coincidentally or not- have been cited as embarrassing by British historians but are widely mentioned, but KEEP events that tare not as widely mentioned and do not deal so directly with Gibraltar (but which -coincidentally or not- are not considered embarrassing by British historians).

Although sourced as the opinion of Garret(1939), a cursory examination of the literature shows it to be untrue. The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845) note also Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Admiral Byng and Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective. All of which document the events to 1704. Aside from anything else the 70 yr old opinion of an author (Garratt) has no bearing on a content discussion and most certainly should never be used to impugn other editors. It was repeatedly and it still is.

The point that I and others have tried to make, which both Richard and Imalbornoz refuse to acknowledge, is that it is not necessary or desirable to mention extensive details in each and every article obliquely related to Gibraltar. This is the locus of the problem, they have sought to force edits into several articles where this level of detail is inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT. WCM email 19:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A minor point but it's worth noting as it is indicative of the lack of fact checking when Richard compiled his comments. When he highlighted the serious violence he alleges I am censoring, he linked to a section of the article I wrote diff . WCM email 12:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note for Arbcom
I have noted above that there is frequent reference by Imalbornoz, repeated by Richard Keatinge, that Kahastok and I are excluding information for POV reasons. As I've pointed out one of the very articles they linked in their evidence was written by me; it's clearly untrue. This is A) uncivil and B) a long standing and peristent failure to assume good faith and enter into consensus discussions with an open mind. This alone has been responsible for creating a hostile atmosphere and it clearly can't be allowed to continue. I'm not suggesting blocks or bans but an admonishment or even a simple WP:TROUT seems warranted to me. I would urge you to consider putting this to bed please. WCM email 13:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@

Can I also ask you to consider the point I raised above.

I fear that Imalbornoz is being very economical with the truth and ask you to note, as Kahastok and I have already commented, Imalbornoz is presenting diffs in a highly misleading manner. It's also worth bringing to your attention that throughout the period referred to by this editor he had no sources in his possession. Rather he made an edit, then tried to justify it by using sources found using Google snippets. He also tried to argue weight could be determined in the same way by constructing metrics based on google snippet searches and tried to use the same technique to argue other editors were biased. He has never to my mind considered the range of opinion in the literature, rather he is selective in his selection of facts to give an unbalanced view.

The problems with past RFC obtaining outside opinion was that Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge actively deterred it with the practised technique of posting walls of text and raising multiple irrelevant issues to confuse matters. As an example, during mediation I made a comment about the multiple issues in the way an edit was being formulated. I raised this at WP:NORN at the request of the mediator User:Lord Roem. Imalbornoz disrupted this by raising multiple issues that were not pertinent to that discussion. As discussion diverted from the issue relevant to the noticeboard I asked a focussed question for outside opinion, Richard Keatinge immediately followed this by again raising matters that were irrelevant.

They also disrupted RFC, as an example. Imalbornoz posted a wall of text, then Richard completely hijacked it and rewrote it so it did not address any of the issues raised.

You will find that I have not refused a suggestion of an RFC or outside opinion, nor would I but I would add it is likely to be deterred by the walls of text posted by Imalbornoz. I would in fact welcome outside opinion, in point of fact when Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge were removed from the article by the sanctions he is seeking to have re-imposed, outside editors more or less immediately restored the article in line with what I had been arguing was appropriate for an overview.

I learnt a couple of lessons from the past. One is not to respond to every argumentative comment as it can give the appearance of a WP:Battle, the second was to walk away and not respond to deliberate provocation. I also ask you to note that the circumstances were very different the last time, my mental health was in a mess and I really shouldn't have been editing. None of the behaviours that have lead to past sanctions have been repeated, nor will they be. WCM email 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kahastok
This request is a case of an editor who - having failed to get consensus by continually badgering people on a talk page for months on end - is now trying to use Arbcom to do an end run around the consensus building process instead of just dropping the stick.

Initial notes:
 * The list of involved editors is not complete. There weren't just three of us in the discussion.  Editors involved in the discussion that have not been made aware of this motion include at least:
 * User:Rockysantos
 * User:Thomas.W
 * User:Giraffedata
 * User:IdreamofJeanie
 * User:Apcbg
 * The last edit to the discussion was on 26 January, two weeks ago. Any dispute here is stale.
 * The only times Arbcom intervention has been sought in this area in the last ten years were when Imalbornoz was around - and it has been sought every time Imalbornoz has been around. The same cannot be said of any other editor.

Based on stale discussion at Talk:Gibraltar
The content dispute is that Imalbornoz believes that Wikipedia's articles on Gibraltar should give a great deal of weight to the circumstances of the foundation of the Spanish town of San Roque in 1706. His focus on this narrow point is extreme to the point that he resembles an WP:SPA: probably 95% of his edits in the last two months, and probably 70-80% of his edits all time, are on this specific point.

In terms of the specific situation we're in, this is reasoanbly straightforward. I quote the second paragraph of WP:NOTUNANIMITY:

"Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process."

Imalbornoz appears to believe that his consent is necessary for any consensus to be reached. As such, he has been filibustering the process, badgering editors and insisting that there can be no "real consensus" without him. WCM and I - and others - spent weeks trying to include Imalbornoz in a consensus, but this proved impossible. Note frustration with Imalbornoz's methods here and here for example - and that neither of those comments came from me or WCM.

For me, it is reasonably obvious from a reading of the talk page that there is consensus for this text - once you take account of the stated positions of all involved editors (not just the three named editors here), and of the fact that Imalbornoz is a single editor and not entitled to a veto.

If I thought further dispute resolution would get a consensus that included Imalbornoz, I would agree to it. But Imalbornoz's behaviour - the filibustering, the badgering, the endless repetition of rejected proposals with no attempt made to resolve the objections raised to them, the repeated misrepresentation of others' positions (as noted in footnotes above, plus particularly the quote at the bottom of this wall of text that was taken entirely out of context) - demonstrates to me that this is highly unlikely. And having had this start before Christmas, I think very few of us want to still be having the same discussion next Christmas as well.

If any action is needed at this point to avoid a repeat of the previous car crash, it is to prevent Imalbornoz from raising this point again. Everyone else can work together constructively. All other editors can leave this point and deal with other things - have in fact left this point and spent the last two weeks dealing with other things. Any problems still needing resolution are the result solely of Imalbornoz's refusal to allow this discussion to end. Kahastok talk 12:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow up 09:13, 10 February 2019
Following WCM's lead and going through some of the diffs in Imalbornoz's text, turns out I shouldn't have bothered looking up examples of his misrepresenting others' edits in the discussion because he's done it over and over in his statement on this very page. The timeline is confused, the text in several cases false, the choice of diffs misleading. I only find it disappointing that I am not surprised - Imalbornoz's standard WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in full flow there.

In terms of the outcome of this, to be clear: I see no particular need to add discretionary sanctions in the general case, I feel that would be excessive based on a single discussion. But at the same time, in the general case, if an editor is not willing to drop the stick on his own, it's reasonable to ask that he be required to drop the stick by the community for the good of the encyclopedia. This discussion cannot continue for ever. But I think I can say with confidence that nobody bar Imalbornoz wants it to. Kahastok talk 09:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: comments by Richard Keatinge
A few points to bear in mind when reading this:
 * The last discussion on this article on the point RK raises appears to have been this one back in 2013.
 * The editor who actually removed reference to the violence from the article was User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick here, as part of a wider trim of what had become a seriously bloated history section.
 * When Imalbornoz assigns editors to each side of his WP:BATTLEGROUND, he lists The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick as being on his side.
 * While this is not the place to discuss content, note that there are legitimate reasons not to mention every point in full and complete detail on relatively general articles.

Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge now both appear to be trying to relitigate the events of 2010-2011. Why? For my part, I have no interest in that. It's 2019. The past is the past.

Comments about the choice to go to Arbcom
Taking only what's happened at Talk:Gibraltar, there are behavioural issues. I described them above. Do they require discretionary sanctions? No, not at this point. They require a WP:TROUT. Mentoring would probably help if Imalbornoz intends to return to the topic. But if this had gone to WP:ANI, I'd expect nothing further based on what has happened at Talk:Gibraltar. But I am concerned about the effect of this process on future discussion.

When Imalbornoz first came back, he started a different dispute. The discussion on this point is here. The question was controversial - he knew it had the potential to become heated (and made that point several times) - but we reached consensus quickly. Imalbornoz accepted my proposal the day after the first revert. But in his edit accepting the compromise, and three more times afterward, he was still trying to start the argument. And when he gave up on that one he immediately started trying have an argument over San Roque - another point that he knew was likely to raise the temperature.

If you wanted to raise the temperature at this article now, after the discussion we had - that, I remind you, finished a full two weeks ago - an effective way of doing it would be to bring the dispute here as Imalbornoz did, and make the sorts of statements that Imalbornoz has made.

There is a pattern here.

If we finish this now, and Imalbornoz comes back, I will do my best to ignore all this, to lower the temperature, to continue to edit in a constructive manner with all participants, trying to reach the best consensus we can reach given the views of all the editors involved. But that's not going to work if others - Imalbornoz included - are not similarly committed to lowering the temperature. I simply do not get that impression from the edits I see here. Kahastok talk 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note, modified by Kahastok talk at 23:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thomas.W
This is a classic example of a content dispute between a single-purpose account,, and just about everyone else who has been active on the article, where Imalbornoz stubbornly refuses to accept that other editors don't share their views, and just continues to push their POV, repeating the same arguments over and over again, ad nauseam. Having crossed the border to tendentious editing a long time ago. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Rockysantos
It's generally agreed some people had left Gibraltar when the British took over, however is there any census we can look at to prove this? The government of Gibraltar has on its website broken down the population in it's earliest census from 1753:-

The results then were: British 434; Genoese 597; Jews 575; Spaniards 185, and Portuguese 25.

Is there one from before this that shows the population and how it was before the British took over? This would show if the word exodus is justified.

https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/gibraltar-census-history --Rockysantos (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Above was my statement back in December, which was never really clearly answered.

Is there a census from before the aledged exodus? If so where is it and what are the figures, once that is established can it be proven that the population on mass left Gibraltar for San Roque? Is there a census that shows that Gibraltar had a population of say 5000 then 0 and San Roques census then rose by 5000?--Rockysantos (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I'm very pleased to see that I'm on WCM's "good guys" list. I don't know how old or new it is, but I do know WCM hasn't always felt about me that way, haha. Anyway, I'm not here because of WCM but rather the editor filing the request: let there be no more outing. This isn't the place to discuss what outing is, what its parameters etc. are--just accept it, no more outing. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20
Having worked with WCM and several Argentine editors to resolve contentious issues in the Falkland Islands article (in 2014), which is now a featured article, I can attest to WCM's value as an experienced editor and community member. Controversial topics can be adequately covered in Wikipedia, and WCM has proven expertise in achieving it. Kahastok accurately indicates that the crux of the content problem concerns the "Campo de Gibraltar" population. Imalbornoz accuses WCM and British editors for "POV pushing," when in reality what is happening is a difference of opinion. My understanding of "POV pushing" is that it promotes fringe perspectives. What is the literature or historiography on the topic? Reading the content article's talk page, this is unclear. Therefore, the claim of "POV pushing" is also unclear.

In fact, given the lack of clarity, it seems abusive (behavior-wise) for Imalbornoz to accuse the British editors as being "POV pushers". It's an uncivil defamation of character, which unfortunately often goes without remedy in administration/arbitration boards. Even more concerning (also behavior-wise) is Imalbornoz's outing of the other editors. In my book, these are both clear battleground mentality actions that reveal a lot more about Imalbornoz's behavior than that of the other editors.--<b style="color: Olive">MarshalN20</b> <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bryan Henderson
I follow the Gibraltar article and participated a little in the discussion others have discussed here, which started in December and featured mainly the editors whose discretionary sanction status is the subject of this amendment request.

I would have participated more, but I could not keep my head above the flood of argument between User:Imalbornoz on one side and User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Kahastok on the other. There is clearly something going on between these editors, as this continued for six weeks, meandering from here to there with no apparent hope of editors on one side changing minds on the other and what looks like heavy biases that prevent one side from even considering the other side's argument. Perhaps because of history they have with each other. Furthermore, about half of the discussion is meta-discussion ("You're not arguing properly").

But I don't see that that has any bearing on the amendment request, which is to reinstate discretionary sanction status. I don't see that any of these editors have done anything or is likely to do anything in the future that would result in a discretionary sanction.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Keatinge
I endorse Imalbornoz's point on the underlying content dispute; there is a longstanding campaign to keep out of Gibraltar-related articles details of the serious violence committed against civilians by the mainly-English forces that captured the town in 1704. This violent episode is a significant part of the ongoing Spanish feelings for the place. Histories in English have tended to downplay or even omit it, doing I feel a disservice to any reader who wants a holistic understanding. A coterie of editors (who have done good work elsewhere) have demonstrated remarkable devotion and ingenuity in the cause of omitting or downplaying it on Wikipedia. The discussion has been colossal, repetitive (often diverging into rather dubious procedural points), and wasteful of goodwill. I feel that this does a disservice to Wikipedia. We have also seen editors from other points of view, but in the face of vast argumentation they have generally decided to leave this ghastly dispute. I have profound empathy with their decision. Rather than engage in the dispute again, I would prefer to operate on my own piles without anaesthetic.

Imalbornoz makes a specific request, that admins should again be empowered to issue discretionary sanctions on editors on this subject. (This power was a part of the resolution that did, for a while, cool down the whole dispute.) This might well help a suitable (interested and robust) admin to prevent the content dispute from wasting further immense amounts of time and goodwill. I therefore support the idea, or any other that will bring an appropriate degree of constructiveness and courtesy to the issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I should perhaps add that I don't intend to make any further comment here (unless specifically requested by an admin). I'll just keep it on my watchlist for a bit. And Gibraltar-related articles will remain off my watch list. My dusty row of authorities on the history of Gibraltar may take an overdue trip to the second-hand book shop. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
When Arbcom first passed one of these housekeeping motions, I assume their thinking was that the disputes had quiesced and were no longer a problem. If one of these disputed areas happens to come back to life, with a lot of similarity in the issues raised, this suggests that the housekeeping should be undone. Making the participants file a whole new case seems to undo the 'housekeeping' rationale which suggests only a small matter of tidying up of things no longer needed. If the committee correctly identified the nature of the dispute the first time around, and made a reasonable choice of a sanction regime, that understanding should still hold if the dispute begins again. It is more labor-intensive to do something in a full case than at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re DS housekeeping)
my reading of that housekeeping motion, which is now over four years old, is that it allows a request like this - it doesn't guarantee that the DS will automatically be reinstated. The intent of the motion was that it would allow a quick resumption of the sanctions if the same problems as before reappeared as they were. However, the arbitrators have examined this request and looked at the evidence presented and determined that the issues this time are different to the issues that resulted in the sanctions being imposed in 2010 and they are not convinced that discretionary sanctions are the right tool for the current dispute. That doesn't mean there ins't a dispute, it just means that the arbitrators are of the opinion that this is a different dispute that the community should be allowed to attempt to resolve first. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2019 (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.

Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping: Clerk notes

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



Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Having a preliminary look, I agree that the edits are concerning. Awaiting statements from the other users involved.   AGK  &#9632;  10:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I remain concerned at the activity we are seeing at Gibralter. There appears to be evidence of both entrenchment along POV lines and significant flux between different versions of the article.  Generally, these are signs that when the committee looks deeper it will find a serious breakdown in the normal editorial processes.  However, procedurally, we cannot do justice to these concerns in the form of an ARCA.   AGK  &#9632;  19:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am extremely skeptical of reinstating discretionary sanctions at ARCA in a topic area that has had no active arbitration remedies since 2014. The Committee does retain jurisdiction over past cases and motions, but I think that is just too far of a gap for us to swoop in with another round of discretionary sanctions without a thorough examination of the topic area through a full case. In particular, it seems that the alleged issues in this topic area center around a very small number of editors at the moment. A full case could examine whether we should be restricting those editors specifically instead of casting the widest net we have in our toolbox. I am inclined toward no action here, with a note that a case may be filed if further examination is desirable. I will continue to evaluate further statements and the statements of my fellow arbitrators, however. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We'd be acting on "data" from the original case which is now nine years old if we simply added back discretionary sanctions. The majority of editors named as parties in the original case are no longer problematic in the area, and many new editors that were never examined in the original case have appeared. The circumstances surrounding the topic area appear to be fundamentally different. That's why I'm saying "full case" from my perspective, if we are to take this on. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline. Effectively this is a request to open a case, as we could not reimpose DS at this distance and in these circumstances (very little negative activity on the article) without a case. Haven taken a look, this is a content dispute rather than a behaviour dispute, and discussion is taking place on the talkpage. As such, this is a matter that is best handled by the community as ArbCom cannot pass judgement on content issues. Dispute resolution is the place to go for assistance. SilkTork (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Imalbornoz. I see two recent discussions on the Gibraltar talkpage. One is about governance - that started on Dec 2nd and was resolved by you all on 13th Dec. The second one is regarding the exodus of the population, and that started on 13th Dec and by 26th January was still not resolved, so you talked about some form of dispute resolution, such as a RfC. The discussions on the talkpage are snappy and irritable and are not ideal, and there is some history on this matter, as you indicate, but such heat in protracted and controversial debates is not uncommon - though I do find your mentions of blocks to be inappropriate. What I see is that there is no agreement on a way forward, so you have reached a stalemate. You feel that as there are two editors on one side, and you on the other, that you are being ganged up on. That may be so. That is why in these situations we go to the community for fresh eyes. If the community look at the matter and agree with you or the others, and that despite community consensus either you or the others continue to push your point, then the matter can be raised at ANI. If ANI can't come to decision as to if you or the others should be sanctioned for disregarding consensus, then would be the time to bring the matter to ArbCom. At the moment I see a content dispute rather than a behaviour dispute, and a content dispute which needs fresh eyes to look at the content rather than the behaviour. Your concern in this, as evidenced above in your statement, is not so much the behaviour of the other editors, but about the content of the article which you and the others disagree about. You are as passionate about getting the wording of the exodus right as WCM and Kahastok are, except you have different solutions to the wording. Your point of commonality is that you all want the wording to be fair, accurate and proportionate. What you need is some assistance with finding the wording that you can all agree on. DS will not help you find the wording, it will sanction and restrict those editors who become too heated in the discussions - and that may be you. You are far better to go via the community route. SilkTork (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Imalbornoz. I will consider carefully what you have said. SilkTork (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Decline Boiled down to its essence, this is a content dispute and it appears there is communication on the talk page. The community should try to handle this as a whole, or an RfC created, rather taken to ArbCom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Decline. The DS are too old and too broad for me to comfortable reinstating them in an ARCA. If there's a solution here, it seems more likely to be sanctions against individual editors, but before that happens there needs to be an attempt at dispute resolution through the usual processes and, if that fails, a new case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Manning naming dispute (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MattLongCT at 01:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 15


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Remedy 15
 * Remedy 15 of Manning naming dispute is amended to read:

15) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to... any gender-related dispute or controversy... broadly construed" continue to remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Gamergate case, not this one.

Statement by MattLongCT
I am seeking a clarification and proposed amendment to Manning concerning its current relevance in regards to enforceable actions. The case in question has not had a formal amendment since 2013. Currently, the case is in a grey area since it cites Sexology even though the case had its discretionary sanctions since rescinded. This has not been noted anywhere in the page for Manning.

However, it is listed in General sanctions. Separately, Template:Ds/alert says: Pages dealing with transgender issues including Chelsea Manning... and Manning naming dispute) (superseded by the GamerGate decision.) (Gamergate never explicitly did this according to its case page.)

I fail to see any consistency for what the exact status of Manning is supposed to be. In resolving this, my proposal is that the remedies continue forward with only a slight amendment to show that the case now serves as a clarification of Gamergate. This field of debate still has much activity, so in my view having this exact case to fall back on would be preferable. Gamergate did not once reference LGBT+ issues specifically, so I do not see the problem of having this Manning serve to supplement it.

For the record, this is my first time ever posting in WP:ArbCom, so that might be nice to know. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  04:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to
It would be simpler to do that; I would agree. However, my preference is for an amendment over a rescision. One could reasonably interpret GamerGate as not including transgender or preferred pronoun debate. Maybe it's just me who has noticed it, but I don't think that Manning has been applied much since Gamergate was issued. For example, I took a look at discussions such as this one, and I can't seem to find a single instance where a person was formally notified of GamerGate DS (including users named in GamerGate). I did find instances of users being notified of the Sexology Discretionary Sanctions. For that particular discourse, I could not find a single instance of GG/DS applied during that Early June 2015 period (I found one GG/DS alert from months later).

In my view, if the committee felt that Sexology was too ambiguous in 2013 to find a need for Remedy 15 of Manning, then I would say that should go double for GamerGate. It's more broad than Sexology sure, but that is why this clarification is needed and would ensure that it is applied properly and consistently. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  22:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Secondary Statement by MJL
I have been keeping up with the statements made in this request. I have begun to notice that discussion has drifted away from my original question somewhat. Therefore, I am presenting this secondary statement.

First of all, in response to 's question, I am grateful of for noting their December 2016 Request. However, I will state that I intentionally did not include in this request any mention of nor make any request related to GGTF. My intention was simply to clean up the issues associated with the inconsistent application of DS/alerts in LGBT-related topics.

Originally, my participation in this RfC brought me to this conclusion. To elaborate: though there is a gender-related dispute concerning the Matrix, the DS Talk page template has not been placed. I found this odd for such a controversial dispute.

Furthermore, and not to sound like a Wikilawyer, it is of my belief that by removing Remedy 15, the committee would give credence to those that might corrupt the committee's intentions for doing so. This could falsely give credence to the belief that Transgender-related topics are no longer controversial and don't fall under the DS regime anymore. There are certainly some parliamentary procedural viewpoints that may justify this view. I would rather keep Remedy 15 as it is rather than seeing it be striked in all honesty. It just leads to more questions of "intent of ArbCom." I primarily just want to avoid those disingenuous discussions before they really come up.

Penultimately, I will say that if the committee was to move to formally supercede GGTF, then they would also most likely have to amend or rescind Remedy 1.1 of Arbitration enforcement 2 which cites that case (more specifically this motion). The whole thing is rather complicated, so that is why I sticking with my original request. Otherwise we dig way too deep into the weeds here.

Finally, just taught me a new idiom: Tempest in a teapot. I would say that would be a fair criticism to apply to this request, yeah. This is really just glorified housekeeping.

Thank you all! &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to
I do agree with their concerns. Aesthetically, GGTF is a nicer case to put this all under, yet Gamergate was the one of the two to outgrow its original jurisdiction for whatever reason. However, we could just rename the case something like GGTF 2 or Gender-related Disputes if we are so inclined. Just a thought. I am happy with the current motion as it stands either way. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Seren Dept
The GamerGate scope seems purposely broad enough to cover earlier cases like Manning or GGTF, and similar issues in the future. I don't think anyone would win an argument claiming that transgender-related issues are outside of that scope, though I suppose it would be harmless to explicitly include them. I think the related DS are regularly applied and I would guess that editors in those areas are widely aware. Maybe warnings are not logged or aren't where you're looking, or maybe I'm wrong and it could be more widely publicized.

I guess narrowness is likable in sanctions, but for this I don't think it would be an improvement. Seren_Dept 03:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alfie
I support this change - it doesn't make much difference to the way this remedy will be enforced, but nonetheless it's worth being explicit about these things. There are bad faith editors who will attempt to adhere to the word of the sanction and not the spirit - may as well tighten down the wording to match the intention. -- a. get in the spam hole &#124; get nosey 10:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
Seems like a storm in a teacup to me. Manning didn't create any sanctions; it was only reminding people of the sanctions that were already in place at the time of the case. The sanctions that were rescinded in the Sexology motion were de facto recreated when we voted to impose the GamerGate sanctions less than a year later. If people strongly care, you could redirect people to GamerGate to make it covered de jure, but that seems to be at the discretion of admins at AE on a particular request. As for GGTF, the sanctions 100% GamerGate sanctions.

The gender gap on Wikipedia is indisputably falls under any gender-related dispute or controversy. Since DS have been standardized for close to a decade and logging has happened on the same page for 5 years, deciding if the sanction should be logged in section A or section B is pretty much the only confusion that can happen. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Manning name dispute)
MattLongCT's idea to rename the case something like "Gender-related disputes" is a good one and not without precedent - "Footnoted Queries" was renamed by motion to "Editing of Biographies of Living Persons" when it outgrew it's original scope. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As an alternative to renaming Gamer Gate or shoehorning this into GGTF you (the committee) could open a new case "Gender-related disputes" for the sole purposes of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. It would also provide a suitable and clear venue for future clarification or amendments requests to expand or contract the topic area covered or the sanctions applied without implying such were at all related to either Gamer Gate or the GGTF. This could of course be done (almost) equally well after the currently proposed motion passes ("almost" as it would require two lots of paperwork rather than one). Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2019 (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.

Manning naming dispute: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse for this request for clarification based on my comment above. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Manning naming dispute: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting further statements, but this seems like a straightforward fix. I agree that transgender issues would fall under the GamerGate DS. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 15 doesn’t really need closing because it isn’t a DS authorization. It’s more just a reminder that there are DS out there that apply. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I invite statements on whether we should rescind DS in the GGTF case in favor of a similar remedy specifying that everything related to the GGTF is within the scope of GamerGate. That would put all gender-related disputes under one roof at the AELOG, which may be desirable. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For history, I asked for GGTF to be rescinded in favor of falling under GamerGate back in 2016. At the time, the Committee believed there wasn't 100% overlap, which I continue to disagree with. The "gender gap" in editors as a whole is certainly a controversy, in my opinion, and DS are purposefully construed broadly to cover any possible edge cases by association. There was also some question about continuity at the time, but no-one ever considered the possibility of redirecting the old "code" for GGTF to GamerGate as we recently did for the Balkans. We could even further make "gender" a code for GamerGate in the relevant templates, if we wished, to make it super easy to find them. I'll type up a motion tonight for both of these. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think re-naming cases years after they're closed is poor form and likely to make historical references to the case confusing. Let's just add "gender" as a code that targets GamerGate at Ds/alert and be done with it. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree this needs fixing. Would it be simpler and cleaner to do with Manning as was done with Sexology? That is, close Remedy 15, and state that gender-related disputes are covered under Gamergate: . SilkTork (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with SilkTork that closing Remedy 15 and moving these disputes to Gamergate is cleanest. And I've often wondered why GGTF and Gamergate haven't been moved together. Katietalk 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've fallen behind on ARCA lately, so this is a little late. I see the point here - there's lots of overlap between cases - but I'm not sure that consolidating everything under GamerGate is a good solution. In fact I dislike the idea of ever referencing GamerGate for any purpose other than talking about GamerGate. If I had my druthers (well, does anyone ever get just one druther?) I'd consolidate everything at GGTF, rather than referring all gender-related disputes to a page about a very specific, narrow individual example. (OK, yes, GGTF is also a specific example, but at least it's our own example.) Also, these issues get into the media every so often (a recent example) - more often than many other content-oriented disputes that have come to arbcom - which is not a context in which reanimating GamerGate-related disputes is desirable. IMO if we're going to reorganize these sanctions anyway, I'd prefer to stop giving unnecessary prominence to that specific incident. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Manning naming dispute



 * Support
 * Noting that we don't have to modify other remedies from other cases that refer to the Interactions at GGTF discretionary sanctions, because they didn't refer to the use of those discretionary sanctions to impose new sanctions. That was a problem unique to the Manning naming dispute case. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 21:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Windmill-tilting, I suppose. My issue is with the status quo, not the specific proposed modifications, but I dislike letting the opportunity pass by for fixing the objectionable feature of pointing all "gender-related disputes" to GamerGate. I don't want to rename that case (it got media attention in its own right, so a rename really would be confusing, even with redirects and whatnot). Pointing everything back to GGTF seems like the least-worst solution. I really, strongly believe that it is inappropriate to be directing new editors, in a topic area where we know there are specific recruiting efforts on that subject and where we know our miscues tend to attract media attention, to GamerGate-related material. But I have trouble putting my exact objections into words - "it's too Internetty" is kind of unsatisfying - and nobody else seems to mind, so maybe I'm the crazy one? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * AGK &#9632;  18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments

Clarification request: Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope (February 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Eastern Europe
 * Macedonia
 * Macedonia

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

Statement by RGloucester
This is a matter of housekeeping, and I hope that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee can assist me by providing some clarification. Recently, I filed a request for arbitration enforcement relating to the article "Origin of the Romanians". In making preparations to file that request, I came across the strange situation whereby I knew discretionary sanctions applied to the relevant article, but I was not sure which of the two related and existing discretionary regimes was most appropriate to use. I expect that's somewhat confusing, so let me explain a bit further.

There are discretionary sanctions regimes in place for articles related to Eastern Europe, and for the Balkans. Unfortunately, the definitions of both 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans' are ambiguous and potentially overlapping. This produced a strange result whereby the relevant editor had originally been notified of the Eastern Europe regime, but was later notified of the Balkans regime in relation to his edits of the same article. In any case, this ambiguity is really not desirable for discretionary sanctions. The definition of 'Eastern Europe' specifically has actually been a matter of substantial dispute on Wikipedia before. One can easily imagine a situation whereby one could 'wikilawyer' about the validity of a notification of the existence of one of the regimes, in an effort to avoid sanctions. I wonder if the the Arbitration Committee can do one of two things: either clearly define the scope of each regime, or merge the two. This way, administrators enforcing sanctions and editors seeking their enforcement will not have to grapple with the ambiguities inherent in the terms 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans', and will be able to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.
 * In response to your question, I endorse the analysis by Thryduulf. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Romania is considered part of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in most definitions of both terms. The use of "broadly construed" means that there is no doubt that Romanian-related topics are presently under sanctions. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I respect your judgement. Here's the problem I foresee. In the specific case of Iovaniorgovan, he was notified of ARBEE sanctions almost as soon as he started editing here. When his participation in the debate at Origin of the Romanians became increasingly problematic, an administrator notified him of the Balkans sanctions, seemingly unaware of the previous alert, or otherwise disagreeing with the scope of the alert applied, therefore delaying the enactment of sanctions on Iovaniorgovan, and causing other long-term editors to be swept up in his messes. In addition, we now have a strange situation where the page-level restriction that was applied at Origin of the Romanians was logged under the Balkans case log, but the topic bans on Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca are logged under ARBEE. It's simply a bureaucratic mess, and it should be cleaned up. No one should have to roll the dice to decide which of these regimes to apply in a given case, and logging should make coherent sense, not be scattered all over the place. These sorts of messes make it harder for editors understand DS, and indeed, harder for them to participate in DS areas, for fear of falling into a Kafka-esque trap. We owe it to our editors to have a rationalised system of enforcement. That's why I'm asking for clarification.  RGloucester  — ☎ 22:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As a further example for Mr Johnston, here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone was editing a Romania-related article, like Origin of the Romanians, and received an ARBEE alert. They then go on to make substantial and problematic edits to articles about the Yugoslav Wars. Would that ARBEE alert still be valid, or would a new Balkans alert be required? These sorts of grey areas...are really not desirable in a DS regime. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee for taking up this matter. In response to Future Perfect at Sunrise, whom I greatly respect as an administrator, I'd like to say that your approach is indeed the best one. However, because the nature of the DS scopes implemented by the cases does not align with the specific disputes that brought on the cases, such a methodology is difficult to implement in practice. In as much as the scope of the sanctions is not "conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind", but "anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed", &c., grey areas quickly become apparent. I presume that the intent behind the broader scope of the sanctions, relative to the locus of the disputes that brought about the cases, was that the disputes that occurred provided evidence to suggest further disputes in the broader topic area were likely, and that it would be best to implement broader sanctions as a preventative measure. Whether that was a correct course of action is not for me to decide, but I will say that, in particular, the existence of the ARBEE sanctions was of a great help in controlling the outbreaks of disruptive editing that occurred at the time of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014...despite the original case not having had anything to do with that topic. In any case, I would advise the Committee to be more careful in its crafting of DS scopes in future, making clear whether it intends to limit such scopes to the locus of the dispute that occurred, or apply sanctions to a broader topic area as a preventative measure. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand what your motion is trying to do, but I think you need to clarify the logging procedure. Will the logs be unified, or kept separate? RGloucester  — ☎ 17:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I find your proposed change more undesirable than even the present mess, in line with what was said by Mr Rob. As for why, it will do nothing to solve the problem about when to apply each regime, will do nothing to sort out the scattered logging procedures that I described above, and will in fact only make this whole business MORE confusing. The goal of a merger was to eliminate questions about which regime to apply in areas of geographical overlap, like Romania, as demonstrated by Thryduulf below, and also to centralise logging so as to avoid the situation of having multiple sanctions related to one particular article logged under different regimes. Your proposal will leave parallel bureaucracies in place, seemingly for no purpose, and leave behind a mess for others to sort through. The idea that updating templates, &c., is too much work is very sad. ArbCom established sanctions, and has a responsibility to the community to maintain those sanctions in a rational way. If you need my help cleaning up templates, I can offer it, as I have experience in that area. In any case, I support Mr Rob's motion as the most sensible approach. The other alternative I can forsee would be to clarify the scopes of the two cases to make them easier to differentiate, but the merger seems to have more support, and is easier to implement. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
I recommend the committee make a motion of clarification here. The articles on Eastern Europe and Balkans are both unclear to whether Romania is part of the region. Neither of the disputes leading to discretionary sanctions particularly apply to Romania; the Balkans dispute primarily involved Bulgaria, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. The Eastern Europe dispute primarily involved Poland, Russia, and the Baltic States; the more recent crisis in the Ukraine has also fallen under those sanctions.

I'm not certain that Romania falls under any Discretionary Sanctions at this time. An explicit list of countries affected (rather than a region name) may be necessary. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re: Eastern Europe/The Balkans)
Looking at our articles about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, there is indeed overlap between them. Taking a reasonably (but not excessively) broad interpretation some or all of the following countries are included (sometimes depending on context):

Notes:
 * 1) Geographically (sometimes) South Eastern Europe if this is distinguished
 * 2) Usually only in geographical contexts
 * 3) Only in (some) political contexts
 * 4) Geographically usually Central Europe when this is distinguished, Eastern Europe when it isn't
 * 5) Prior to reunification only
 * 6) Only in Soviet/Cold War contexts
 * 7) Only in religious contexts
 * 8) Only the mainland in geographic contexts; included in only a few political contexts (most notably Macedonia naming dispute)
 * 9) Very occasionally included in political contexts, but should not be for discretionary sanctions purposes
 * 10) Only the European part

Based on this, Eastern Europe (when South Eastern Europe is not distinguished separately) is a near complete superset of the Balkans, so merging these into a single authorisation of "Eastern Europe including the Balkans and the Macedonia naming dispute." would resolve all the issues the OP raises. No actual restrictions would be altered, only the case they are logged under would change. Possibly those who are formally aware of only one scope would need to be informed they are now formally aware of the newly combined scope, but not definitely and this would only be a one-time thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with RGloucester - either the scope of both restrictions should be clarified so there is no overlap, or the restrictions should be merged into one (and Rob's proposal is a sensible way to achieve this). AGK's proposal is the worst of both worlds as it increases the bureaucracy and makes the confusion worse: at present there is no ambiguity that sanctions related to Poland should be logged under the EE case, if this proposal were to pass then there would be as sanctions could be placed under either or both cases; all the while it would not resolve the existing ambiguity over issues related to e.g. Romania. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston
Agree with the views of User:AGK. There is little upside to modifying the existing sanctions, and a possible downside. Even the present request doesn't give a persuasive reason why a change is required. In the recent AE about Origin of the Romanians nobody made the argument that the topic wasn't covered under WP:ARBEE. Even if ARBEE and ARBMAC do overlap, it's hard to see that as a problem.

Many of the existing DS are about nationalism. In the ideal case, we would have some kind of universal sanction that could be applied to nationalist editing anywhere in the world. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf
Speaking as somebody who has helped enforcing both sets of sanctions numerous times, I think there's rarely be much of a problem in determining which rule to apply, even if they overlap. For me, the crux of the matter is really not a mechanistic application of what country counts as belonging to what continental region. Those are pretty arbitrary attributions, and to take just one example, you will rarely find Greece described as belonging to "Eastern Europe", even though obviously its geographical longitude is well within the range of other countries that are. What matters is really more the nature of the underlying political struggles motivating the disruption we find on Wikipedia. Speaking broadly, "Eastern Europe" sanctions have mostly been invoked dealing with ethnic/national conflicts that broke up – directly or indirectly – in the wake of WWII, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "Balkans" sanctions have been invoked dealing with conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind. I'd personally be opposed to merging the two sanction rules. It shouldn't really matter in practice, if it wasn't for the practice of some admin colleagues (unnecessary and not really advisable, in my view, but still common) to hand out sanctions whose scope is always automatically identical with the entire set of topics covered by the DS regime. For instance, instead of topic-banning somebody from Serbian-Croatian conflicts, which might be entirely sufficient in an individual case, they always automatically reach for a topic ban from all Balkan topics, because that's what the DS rule applies to. I'd find it regrettable if these colleagues were to take a merger of the two DS rules as indicating that in the future all such sanctions should be handed out straight for "all of Eastern and Southeastern Europe", which would almost certainly be overreaching in most cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope: Clerk notes

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



Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * On an initial review, discretionary sanctions in pertain to the Balkans region, which is the Southeastern Europe peninsula.  Treating the Balkans as part of Eastern Europe seems to be a stretch.  Are you sure that the two overlap?  The article seems to be a bad test case: it relates to the distant origin of a people, which involves by its nature a broad range of geography.  While awaiting comment, I'll say generally that I need to be convinced of good reason for changing any discretionary sanctions remedy.  The changes can themselves cause short-term dispute and confusion, and defaulting to no change is a sensible practice.   AGK  &#9632;  17:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Special thanks indeed to for sharing a useful, methodical assessment of the area.  To move us towards a conclusion (one way or the other), I will draft a motion shortly.   AGK  &#9632;  11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Re. logging and RGloucester: I have proposed amending each case separately, without a disruptive "merger". In practice enforcement requests are always made in the context of a single arbitration remedy – ignoring all others – and so having two with the same scope will have no effect.  At the same time, it avoids the need to update a bunch of notices, insist that existing sanctions are still in effect, and change how daily enforcement is carried out.   AGK  &#9632;  18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Per Thryduulf's assessment, merging the two DS areas into something like "Eastern and Southeastern Europe" sounds like it would make enforcement a bit easier. But that does highlight their extremely broad scope: the history, society, geography, etc. of half a continent. Both motions seem to have been based on the actions of a handful of editors and the Balkans case is now over a decade old. Perhaps it's time to consider rescinding or refining these. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merging the two makes sense to me as it doesn't increase the scope of the two DS simply puts them together for convenience and clarity. And it would be helpful to include a list of the countries involved. I am comfortable leaving the DS in place as it does not restrict editing, but is there to be used in case of future problems, and there may well be future problems. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think merging the two as SilkTork said would make sense for clarity sake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Thryduulf for your extremely useful table. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I want to note that it was extremely helpful in parsing this situation. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Motions: Eastern Europe and Balkans scope
(1) Proposed:


 * Support
 * Proposed. I take Fut.Perf's point, but this topic has been trying for the Wikipedia community. On balance, I am content with drawing the lines slightly more broadly than may be required in every case.   AGK  &#9632;  10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer option 3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments


 * Appeals or sanctions under the EE case should continue to be logged as Eastern Europe. The scope of other cases or authorised discretionary sanctions has no effect.   AGK  &#9632;  18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(2) Proposed:


 * Support
 * Proposed.  AGK  &#9632;  10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prefer option 3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments


 * And here, appeals or sanctions under the EE case should continue to be logged as Macedonia. The scope of other cases or authorised discretionary sanctions has no effect.   AGK  &#9632;  18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(3) Proposed:


 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 23:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like the neater solution. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This overall seems to be the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer this. It's a bit more effort to deal with the existing notices, but should make things simpler going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Switched from oppose. Reconsidered based on community comment about the difficulty that might be caused by two remedies covering the same area.   AGK  &#9632;  19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Switched from oppose. Reconsidered based on community comment about the difficulty that might be caused by two remedies covering the same area.   AGK  &#9632;  19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments


 * Proposing as an alternative to 1/2 without comment on whether we should do this at all, to avoid the odd situation of authorizing the exact same discretionary sanctions in two different cases. That just seems like a mess waiting to be cleaned up when some future Committee changes the sanctions in one place but forgets about the other. I hope to be able to look at this situation and actually support or oppose in the near future rather than maintaining my current inactivity on the matter. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've placed my votes after a review of the situation. This seems to be an improvement to me, reducing the overlap while not "losing" anything. Whether the DS should be removed entirely seems to be a separate question, and one best answered after we know how these DS operate when enacted in a less confusing manner. As a point of clarification on awareness, note that editors who were "aware" of the Balkans discretionary sanctions will need to be made aware of the Eastern Europe and Balkans sanctions before they can be subject to DS. This is a small hiccup, but it actually is rather sensible, since Eastern Europe and the Balkans is a superset of the Balkans. I consider it a happy accident that this merger would likely result in editors being made aware of the sanctions active in the broader topic area they're editing. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (March 2019)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Doug Weller at 11:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Doug Weller
My clarification request concerns the article for Ilhan Omar, a member of the United States House of Representatives. She's a controversial person in part simply because she is a Muslim and in part because of some comments on Israel. I added the usual ARBPIA template at the top of the page and have told some non-ECP editors about the ruling applying to them if they edit related content in the article. I've been asked at Talk:Ilhan Omar if 1RR applies to the content relating to the dispute. I've always assumed that it doesn't automatically apply and only applies if the is added to the talk page and the edit notice  added to the article.

I'd like to confirm that:

1. The plain talk page template without means that the only restriction on the article applies to non-ECP editors editing within the area of the dispute. 1RR does not apply and cannot apply to only part of an article.

2. If edits to the article not relating to the dispute suggest that the subject is being targeted because of her positions on the dispute (or her Muslim identity) it's permissible to apply ECP to the article without the other restrictions or simply to apply the AE restrictions template even though the article as a whole doesn't fall within the area of the dispute. It's increasingly my opinion that this should be done. Interestingly the article on her fellow Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also has a section on the dispute but Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez show it covered only by American Politics but with a 1RR and enforced WP:BRD (Template:American politics AE).


 * You've said that "The PIA General 1RR restriction applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This includes parts of an otherwise-unrelated page" and others seem to agree. But that isn't what the text we voted on said or what I understood it to mean at the time. The motion we voted on says "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." No mention of "all content". Suggesting that it applies to all content (which would mean even in pages where there's no talk page notice about ARBPIA) seems an overreach to me. What might be a reasonable argument is that by putting the sanctions notice on the talk page, even though I didn't add the specific restrictions, puts the entire article under 1RR. Is that the argument you are making? But that raises the question why have the two notices? We should only have the one notice, the one that spells out the sanctions. As for the edit notice, this was my interpretation of this clarification request. We discussed edit notices and awareness there extensively and the motion we passed says
 * Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
 * The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
 * here was an editnotice on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.


 * That's what WP:ACDS says now. It seems unreasonable to say that if the page is mainly about another area that it doesn't need an edit notice related to the ARBPIA 1RR restriction. Doug Weller  talk 21:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * there's a whole section at Ilhan Omar. I don't see how ARBPIA could not be relevant to that or that non-ECP editors or IPs should be allowed to edit it. Could you explain your reasoning? Rob, I agree with your assessment. Having said what I said to Rick about this specific article, I also have seen articles where there has been editwarring about whether a location is in Palestine or Israel, often just about that single word. I've always seen ARBPIA as meant to also cover this sort of detail as it's clearly, to me at least, within the conflict area. So I'd agree that an article such as Omar's should have a 1RR edit notice (and it does now under AP), I'm not sure that an article where the main ARBPIA issue is the location should have one unless we can craft it so that it's clear exactly what in the article is relevant. Doug Weller  talk 09:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that AP2 and BLP deal with most of my concerns and I've set AP restrictions. That still leaves the problem of the section in Omar's article on the Ilhan Omar. It's my strong opinion that this is covered by by the 500/30 restriction but not all share my opinion. In particular Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement was about an edit by Sangdeboeuf where they reverted an edit relating to the confllict by a non-ECP confirmed editor on the basis of my statement that non-confirmed editors could not edit any content relating to the conflict. User:TonyBallioni, whose views I generally agree with, disagreed that ARBPIA applied to this section. I hadn't thought that this was even a grey area but to my disappointment I can't find anything to back my assumption. So I and I think others need to know if non-ECP editors and IPs can edit material relating to the conflict if the article isn't basically about the conflict. Doug Weller  talk 10:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, the page itself is not essentially about the dispute, but the section is, and I think that what WP:TBAN says applies here. Using "weather" as an example, it says that a tban from the topic "weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not." If we wish to prevent edit-warring in an area covered by sanctions, those sanctions should cover not just articles devoted to the area but sections of articles that focus on the area. Doug Weller  talk 13:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I've been wrong in my assumptions, wishful thinking perhaps as I think ECP needs to apply to all related content in this area. The problem (and the reason I've been wrong) is that 1RR and the general 500/30 rule are not actually discretionary sanctions. I think they should be part of DS as I see a lot of drive-by editors and IP addresses (and the cynical side of me says some of these are editors logged out) changing content that's only a minor part of an article - often the names Israel or Palestine or the location of sites or towns, and 1RR and 500/30 would be a big help here, as well as in cases such as the section of Omar's article that is specifically about the conflict. Topic bans cover all content of course, is that the sort of AE action you are thinking of or is some related to the ECP issue? Doug Weller  talk 13:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Calthinus
if you don't mind, I'd like to clarify the question(s) here a bit, as your original request is actually touching on multiple different issues that could be relevant for whether a page is ARBPIA... and I'd like to make clear the options among which we unsure which matches global (as opposed to local i.e. page-respective) en-wiki policy.

1) The simplest of all, that some of Omar's comments that drew controversy were about Israel. She is an American politician though and the controversy is in America. Does this mean it is (a) not ARBPIA at all, (b) ARBPIA for specifically those comments and the ensuing controversy or (c) ARBPIA in total.

2) Probably the comment Ilhan Omar that made the most controversy (aside from mostly religious Christian right-wingers flipping out about her hijab, which I don't personally think is relevant to ARBPIA) is her view that pro-Israel lobbyists have "hypnotized" people. To many Jews, including many progressive Jews, this is an offensive anti-Semitic canard that is all the worse because Omar herself is hypocritically the victim of religious bigotry, while for others, again including people who are Jewish, it is media (especially conservative media) taking what she said out of context. Without commenting on which side is "right", there are actually two questions here:


 * 2a) Are pro-Israel lobbyists or lobbying groups covered by ARBPIA, and are comments about them by others. Does this make (a) nothing ARBPIA, (b) just the material related to pro-Israel lobbying/ists, (c) the whole article for subjects involved ARBPIA.


 * 2b) Again without commenting on the "correctness" of either side, Omar is accused of antisemitism. Full disclosure my personal view is that she is more chronically inconsiderate and communalist than she is anything akin to David Duke, which is not going to be popular with either side.  While obviously most non-Israeli Jews are non-Israeli and indeed a significant minority are critical of the structure of the Israeli state, issues of global antisemitism are central to Israeli identity. Do figures (wide range: Omar to Sebastian Gorka to David Duke, no I do not believe they belong in the same category but these are an easy and relevant examples that are not --yet-- covered by ARBPIA) who have commentary on their nation's foreign policy via Israel and also antisemitism become covered by ARBPIA in the capacity of (a) not at all, (b) Israel and antisemitism related material, (c) just Israel material or (d) in totality?

3) As it stands currently, 's writeup mentions Omar's very visible Muslim faith. Islam is not definitively "Israeli/Palestinian domain", however just like antisemitism there is a lot of interaction, as there is a sense of pan-Islamic solidarity regardless of the reality of this solidarity, on both sides. Furthermore, although this fact may be regrettable, by wearing the hijab and by spearheading the effort to allow head coverings in federal government processes, Omar became an iconized living symbol of religious Muslims in the US (again, personally I find this incredibly problematic on many different grounds but it is hard to deny it has become the case) and has been punished for it time and time again by unabashed Islamophobes on social media elsewhere. At first glance this may not seem relevant, but since Doug brought it up, it is worth mentioning that issues of Muslim immigrant assimilation do play a role in debates about how Muslim Americans can relate to American foreign policy (I am not implying all Muslim Americans are anti-Israel/pro-Palestine/or anything whatever, but one cannot deny that this is relevant). Should this also be a consideration? Personally I think, no, but it has already been brought up and is worth asking because I can see another side here as well

Hope I've made the issues here more, not less clear?--Calthinus (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
But per PIA General 1RR restriction it applies to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" and not to the content. I btw agree with you AGK and think it should apply to the content but then the wording should be changed --Shrike (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
Agree with AGK and Shrike: when ARBPIA notice is place, then it is 1RR for the whole article.

As for changing the rules (so that ARBPIA is only for a part of the article)...Please don't. The usefulness of that does not make up for the added level of complication (The rules are more than complicated enough as it is!) Huldra (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
I'd like to introduce this AE case into evidence. The AE case involved, in part, edit warring in Acid throwing - which is mostly not ARBPIA - however Acid throwing is very much ARBPIA related. Such ARBPIA sections are common in longer pages - and applying this on the section would make sense. Ilhan Omar is in the border-zone between reasonably and broadly (as much of the coverage of her, through the years, is focused on antisemitism/Israel/etc.) overall, and specific sections of the page are very much ARBPIA related. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - the motion at present is unclear on who may place the notice. All users (as with the current ARBPIA banners)? Just admins? If just admins (which I think is a bad idea in this case) - where can one request that notices be placed?Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - AFAIK the ARBPIA banners were mainly placed by non-admin users ( and were both prolific) - however their coverage is spotty (I would guess less than 30%-40% coverage - lots of pages clearly in scope do not have an ARBPIA banner), and sometimes wrong (e.g. Iran/Israel which was ruled out of scope by ARCA still has some banners). The current 1RR regime covers thousands of pages at the very least, and in some situations (e.g. during the 2014 Gaza war) new pages can pile up at rather high rates. At present the topic area lacks "resident admins" ( does edit in the topic area, but is not always around.  mainly edits in election related contexts, and I am not sure anyone else is active). The really "hot" edit wars tend to occur not in established long running pages such as the Six Day War but more down in the weeds - current events, terror attacks, and individual settlements and bios. If there is no mechanism here for quick rollout (either normal user, or a queue with good response times) - things will get ugly, and possibly even less clear (e.g, users 3RRing up until the edit notice going in) than today. Unlike AP2 which has fairly active "resident admins" and topics edited by regulars, ARBPIA lacks the residents and has many  "flash crowds" that show up when a current event is occuring (and editing lots and lots of pages - bio/places/units/etc related to the event).Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is beyond growing pains. Rfpp often takes 12 hours and if the edit notice is not streamlined there (and obvious to admins there who are often at ARBPIA what? When they respond) - it will be overlooked. ECP protection is at present very spotty and some admins at RfPP will reject an ARBPIA ECP request if there was not enough recent disruption (counter to my reading at least of ARBPIA3). I want to stress again how fast and how ugly it gets during terror waves / wars / events - and in those cases it is on several new articles and often obscure existing articles. Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
I can't actually tell what everyone is proposing in this discussion. The question is whether to apply ARBPIA only to entire articles or selectively to parts of articles. The former would be a simpler rule, but it can also lead to absurdity. A year or so ago there was a huge edit war on List of state leaders in 2016 (or some other year) over the 3 lines that applied to Palestine. It would ridiculous to apply ARBPIA to the other 250 or so items in that list just because of those 3 lines. I think that what we need is something like this: if an article is largely related to the I-P conflict, it is covered in toto; otherwise the parts of an article related to the I-P conflict are covered. Zerotalk 08:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal to remove from ARBPIA articles about debate within other countries will impact articles like American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel, both of them about American organizations that now carry ARBPIA tags. In my view, removing ARBPIA protection from such articles would immediately open them to edit-warring of the kind that ARBPIA is intended to subdue, involving the same editors who edit-war on other ARBPIA articles. I cannot see this as a step forward. Zerotalk 05:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
There's a lot of verbiage up there (says the long-winded guy), but the key thing to me is that unusual restrictions like 1RR should never be held to be applicable at a page without the admin-placed editnotices and other templates that explicitly make them so and which are hard to miss. Drama-frought topics are among the most likely to attract new editors, so there's a serious WP:BITE problem here. If I'd ended up blocked my first week of editing, for violating an obscure and excessive rule I didn't know about and which applied only to a particular page, I probably never would have come back. Consider also that new editors can't tell who's an admin, and which concerns to take seriously (lots of noobs get lots of grousing and templates from lots of people; a DS notice from an admin isn't likely to be interpreted as special by someone who doesn't know the ropes yet, but a big warning every time they edit a particular article is harder to ignore). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni
As one of the admins who is more active in ARBPIA from an AE perspective, I'll copy what I just posted at AE here where the ARBPIA and AP2 issues colidied:I think that a lot of the focus on this article as a part ARBPIA is because the subject is visibly Muslim, and that plays a part in the news coverage, because it is a region where the ethno-religious tensions are high. This hasn't been brought up here, but I do think its something that needs to be addressed as a sort of elephant in the room.That being said, I don't think being a Muslim American politician with views on the conflict makes that politician part of it under our rules anymore than an Evangelical Christian congressman who wants all of Israel and the Palestinian territories to be part of the State of Israel because it will speed up the end of the world. The question is whether or not she can reasonably be considered part of the conflict. I do not think she or any other current member of the United States Congress can. something I do think the committee could possibly amend or clarify here is that the ARBPIA general prohibition does not apply to the internal politics of countries that aren't Israel or its neighbors. Namely, if I wanted to, I could make a fairly strong wikilawyerly argument that Harry Truman is reasonably construed to be under the sanctions. Those of us who aren't active participants in the Wikidrama in the area think its crazy, but AE for ARBPIA is generally the same faces reporting each other on technical violations repeatedly or reporting newer users to the area who are on the other "side" that we eventually end up indefing. One country having an internal debate as to its policy on the State of Israel and its relationship with its Arab neighbors is not what these sanctions were usually intended to address. The committee clarifying "Hey, this area is clearly not part of the sanctions." Would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , well, Christians United For Israel is not under ARBPIA ECP currently and the banner on the talk page proclaiming it as being part of it was ironically added by an IP 6 months ago. American Israel Public Affairs Committee currently is, but I would much rather see it under AP2: Israel has long been a third-rail in American politics (in part because of the desire of some evangelicals to bring about the end of the world by supporting it...) and its role in US politics probably should be addressed in its own right. There are also likely articles in British politics that should not be under ARBPIA that are because of the anti-semitism controversies with the Labour Party. A foreign political organization or politician being accused of being anti-semetic or of being a Zionist because of positions on Israel does not suddenly make an internal political dispute part of this conflict.I could see an argument for ArbCom creating new discretionary sanctions for topics surrounding Antisemitism, Zionism, and related topics, but that would need a new case, and I don’t like the direction where it seems that we’re trying to fit things related to those topics into ARBPIA, which I think is a very bad thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
Speaking with my AE-admin hat on, I would not consider Ilhan Omar to be under 1RR or the General Prohibition.

Bans are generally constructed as either "pages related to...." or "pages and edits related to....". In this case, both the ARBPIA 1RR restriction and the General Prohibition are constructed as "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" - ie. the "and edits" is not there. Therefore, when assessing whether these restrictions are being violated, the question is not "Are the edits related to the conflict?" but "Is the page reasonably construed as being related to the conflict?"

I have always seen a difference between "broadly construed" and "reasonably construed" and my understanding is that the "reasonably construed" language was deliberately chosen to be narrower than "broadly construed." My understanding of this language is that "broadly construed" includes any page that has some connection to the conflict, while "reasonably construed" includes only pages on subjects that are mainly about the conflict (or subjects that are mainly notable because of a connection to the conflict). Ilhan Omar is notable as a member of the United States Congress and has made some controversial remarks about the Arab-Israeli conflict; she is related to the conflict, but her principle notability does not come from the conflict. Therefore, the page is not "reasonably construed to be related" and so is not subject to 1RR and the General Prohibition. However, the page is broadly construed to be related, and so is subject to discretionary sanctions.

Clear as mud? GoldenRing (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia
The way things have worked in the ARBPIA area is quite sensible, although that and the wording of the rulings are probably out of kilter, which, I think, is the reason for the current request. The rulings have been applied to ARBPIA-related content in any page, no matter whether the topic can be construed as being in the ARBPIA part of the project or not. In the former case, the rulings have been applied only to the ARBPIA-related content; editors could edit non-related content on those pages freely. As the usage notes that go along with the template for the ARBPIA notice indicate, the notice does not have to be placed on a page in order for the rulings to apply there. In the page which is the cause of the current request, the Ilhan Omar one, that means that under the practice followed in the past at least, ARBPIA rulings would be enforceable on any ARBPIA-related material there without the notice having been placed. The problem that placing the notice has caused is that editors are questioning whether any of the majority, non-related material there is under editing restrictions or not. We possibly have two problems with the current rulings: one that the wording of the rulings may indicate that those rulings apply only on pages where the subject matter falls wholely within the ARBPIA area when in fact the practice has been to apply them to content anywhere; a second whereby we either don't have a second notice which indicates that only ARBPIA-related content on the relevant page or the notice that we do have does that. The practice that has been followed is sensible and I don't think that it should be altered to conform with what the wording of the rulings actually say. Altering the wording of the rulings and the notice would involve a lot of pain which would still not necessarily end up with a sensible form of wording. Given the wording of the notice which we do have, it would be better if it was only placed on pages whose subject matter, broadly constued, fell wholly within the ARBPIA area, those being ones where it would be sensible to apply the ARBPIA restrictions to most of the material. Following current practice, the absence of the notice would not prevent the restrictions being applied to relevant content in other pages. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  13:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "I hadn't thought that this was even a grey area but to my disappointment I can't find anything to back my assumption." From following AE requests for years, I'm sure that the ARBPIA restrictions were applied to isolated sections of ARBPIA-related material in articles which weren't otherwise wholly within the subject area. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My view is that 1RR, which was imposed to slow down edit warring, and 500/30, which was imposed to help combat the use of sockpuppetry to evade sanctions, are restrictions applied to to the editing of all ARBPIA-related material. Discretionary sanctions in the form of, for example, topic bans may be applied by administrators in order to ensure, inter alia, that restrictions such as those are adhered to ("Discretionary sanctions – administrators may impose sanctions on disruptive editors and apply general restrictions on specific pages in the conflict area in accordance with the discretionary sanctions procedure."). Viewed that way, the rules are restrictions that automatically apply to ARBPIA-related material which discretionary sanctions enforce, not restrictions which can be applied as sanctions at the discretion of administrators. It looks to me as though, at route, the problem here is the ambiguity in the phrase "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". How may a page be "related" to the conflict? One interpretation is that the a page's subject matter as expressed in the page title itself should have an obvious connection to the IP conflict. Another interpretation is that the whole of the subject matter should have an obvious connection to the IP conflict. Yet another interpretation is that a relationship may be established if just part of the content is connect. The latter is the one which I'm maintaining is the one which is sensible in terms of reducing strife in Wikipedia and also the one which was traditionally followed on the AE and AI noticeboards. Other editors here such as Icewhiz and AGK seem to be supporting that interpretaion. Taking the third interpretation, there then follows the problem of determining, in the case of pages where only part of the content is related to the conflict, whether the restrictions such as 1RR and 500/30 apply to the whole content or only the conflict-related parts. Unfortunately, WP:ARBPIA can be interpreted as requiring the restrictions to apply to the whole content, though that is neither necessary or sensible as far as the editing of the non-conflict-related material is concerned. A reason that it is not sensible is on display here: in articles such as the one on Ilhan Omar, editors with no interest in the IP conflict will resist the imposition of the ARBPIA restrictions being imposed if those restrictions are applied to the whole page; yet if they're not applied to the parts of those pages whose content is related to the IP conflict, the end result will be the appearance on those pages of the editing problems which the restrictions were designed to cure. Roger Waters is most significant for his music career in Pink Floyd. Because he is outspoken on Palestinian rights, though, on Wikipedia there is a struggle to insert conflict-related material condemning or defending him which threatens to swamp the whole article. Ernest Bevin was British Foreign Secretary at the time when the Cold War was developing and also when the various parts of British India gained independence, yet because he was Foreign Secretary in the couple of years surrounding the creation of Israel, there are similar problems on the article devoted to him. Jeremy Corbyn has had a long political career and is currently the Leader of the Opposition in the UK parliament, het because he is a strong supporter of Palestinian rights, issues surrounding that again affect that article. The United States is vital to Israeli interests: as a member of the UN Security Council it uses its veto frequently to protect Israel; Israel is the main beneficiary of US overseas aid; US military muscle is used to the benefit of Israel against opponents which Israel itself does not have the resource to fight; US financial muscle can be used to fend of the threat posed by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement; US courts can be used to wage lawfare on Israeli opponents. Therefore there exists in the US a very strong lobby which protects those interests. The knock-on effect for Wikipedia is that a lot of pages have a partial connection to the IP conflict. Perhaps a way of resolving the current interpretation problem would be to refer to administrators who were involved in the wording of the ARBPIA rulings and asking what their intentions were and also to administrators who have been involved long-term in enforcing them and asking what their interpretation was. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The problem (and the reason I've been wrong) is that 1RR and the general 500/30 rule are not actually discretionary sanctions. I think they should be part of DS as I see a lot of drive-by editors and IP addresses (and the cynical side of me says some of these are editors logged out) changing content that's only a minor part of an article." I'm having a little bit of difficulty construing the meaning and significance of the rules being part of discretionary sanctions, which makes me wonder whether I've mistaken what the case is about and whether I've been writing at cross purposes with others here.


 * Doug, looking at the Ilhan Omar talkpage, if I've read your comments correctly, you're stating that, in ARBPIA, 1RR and 500/30 are remedies, not discretionary sanctions, which sounds equivalent to what I was trying to say above. The article is interesting in that it contains material falling under two Arbitration Requests, i.e. American Politics and ARBPIA. I think the talkpage demonstrates why the ARBPIA remedies need to be applied to the IP-conflict-related material contained in the article.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  01:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
The idea that a a notice and template should be a requirement for the 1RR restriction to apply to an article is a no brainer. I mean, the very fact that lots of people have no idea - including apparently some of the Arbs judging by User:Doug Weller's opening statement (not criticizing him, I had no idea either) - that it doesn't work that way, evidences that the way we have it now is just goofy. And sort of... mean. On all other areas under ACDS no notice means no restrictions. Editors who make edits go by the instructions that are visible to them. Yes, yes, I know that you get informed about the 1RR applying to anything "broadly construed" ... once a year. But seriously, unless you're very active in a particular topic area, who the hell can remember some notice they got EIGHT+ months ago on their talk page??? *Especially* since the rules are so different from how it works everywhere else.

The problem of course is that this whole "we'll make up a rule but keep it secret" approach was done by admins who didn't bother to even think of how it works from a regular editors' perspective. The flawed design is a result of "what will make it easier for me to block people" thinking by cowboy admins, rather than "what will make for a more collaborative editing environment". Come to think of it, most of the whole discretionary sanctions apparatus is set up on the basis of that (witness the lack of success that DS has had in most controversial areas) thinking, this is just the most egregious example of that dysfunctional approach.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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



Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * First: for rules this complex, we shall need to ensure the guidance (like editnotices) is unambiguous. ARBPIA stacks general remedies on top of one another, necessitating requests for clarification like this one.  Let's also make sure we try hard to simplify 'spaghetti junction' templates like ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, which needs to use about three times fewer words.The PIA General 1RR restriction applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  This includes parts of an otherwise-unrelated page.  The page need not have the standard 1RR template before the restriction applies, though clearly administrators should not mindlessly sanction for reverts by unaware users even if a strict reading of the procedures would permit enforcement.  Whether another remedy shares jurisdiction on a particular page does not change this position.   AGK  &#9632;  20:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1RR restriction applies to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". It does not apply to "any edit", just "any page". As such, a page that couldn't be "reasonably construed" to be within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is not subject to 1RR, even if a small amount of content related to that topic area would place it within the topic area if "broadly construed". The use of "reasonably construed" instead of "broadly construed" was quite intentionally done. I would say a page like this is "broadly construed" to be in the topic area, but not "reasonably construed" to be there. Discretionary sanctions are active, but 1RR is not (by default). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a side note, enforcing administrators could choose to apply 1RR to any page "broadly construed" to be within the topic area as a discretionary sanction, if desirable. It's just not automatic. I see this as optimal, since it allows administrators to tailor the sanctions on pages at the fringe of this topic area to the level of disruption they're experiencing. Does this change your opinion on whether we should be expanding the general 1RR sanction, ? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To correct a point of confusion: ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement has no effect other than to notify editors of the sanctions in place on the topic area. It does not need to be on the talk page to "activate" discretionary sanctions on the article, though its presence is desirable to increase awareness of the sanctions. I find that template somewhat problematic, even, because it seems to imply that the set of articles with 1RR and the set of articles with discretionary sanctions are identical. This is false, since 1RR is "reasonably construed" and discretionary sanctions are "broadly construed". All articles with 1RR have discretionary sanctions active, but not all articles with discretionary sanctions active fall under the general 1RR. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Including the ECP, actually. ECP can be applied as a discretionary sanction if needed to control actual disruption. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All of that awareness/notices stuff is related to discretionary sanctions. The 1RR in this topic area is not a discretionary sanction, and therefore there are no such requirements. Personally, I see that as the one thing we might want to address in this request. Requiring page notices before first-offense, no-warning sanctions for the violation of 1RR in a broad topic area seems the minimum we can do to promote awareness of the remedy. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * i have a problem saying that the ARBPIA 1RR restriction applies to all content when the page AGK linked to himself clearly says otherwise. There will be a couple thousand more pages covered under that restriction if we move from 'pages' to 'content'. As for this particular page, I think it's a real stretch to include it under ARBPIA, but it's obviously covered under AP2, which can do what Doug wants except for the ECP. Katietalk 01:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think linking this to ARBPIA is really a stretch, and would set a precedent that other pages would be added to ARBPIA that necessarily wouldn't need to be. As Katie stated above AP2 would cover this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, it seems obvious that both BLP and AP2 apply, so what's the advantage of using ARBPIA in this context? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the way I see it as well, since BLP and AP2 apply, the Congressperson making comments about Israel/Palestine doesn't make the page itself about Israel/Palestine. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am inactive on this discussion, including any motion that may result. SilkTork (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles
Enacted - Bradv 🍁  02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)




 * Support
 * Last year, we altered our discretionary sanctions awareness requirements to reflect the fact that we really shouldn't sanction editors who are unaware of active page restrictions. To do this, we required the use of edit notices before sanctioning. The change did not affect this remedy, as the general 1RR prohibition is unrelated to discretionary sanctions. The same rationale for requiring edit notices applies here, though, so let's ensure we aren't sanctioning editors who either don't know that 1RR is in effect in this topic area at all or don't know that a specific page could be "reasonably construed" to be within the topic area. If this is passed, ideally, a bot would add the edit notice to all pages that currently transclude ARBPIA on their talk page as a starting point. Edit notices could then be added/removed as needed. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let's try this. This set of sanctions has required "clarification and amendment" so many times it has to have set some kind of Wikipedia record by now, and it gives me a headache every time, but I sure haven't had any better ideas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Nothing in the motion restricts who may place an edit notice, and we explicitly encourage the community to place them wherever applicable. Technically-speaking, though, only admins or template editors have the rights to place an edit notice. Presumably, requests by editors to place them could be made to any admin. As a starting point, as I noted above, a bot could easily place them on every page that's tagged with the 1RR talk page notice. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be temporary growing pains as the edit notices are rolled out, which was the same case when we required them for enforcing page restrictions active under discretionary sanctions. As a practical matter, whenever ECP is requested at RfPP, you can simply ask for the edit notice to be placed as well. The coverage is the same for the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 19:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If such a request is declined and removed despite an IP/new editor having recently edited the page, feel free to bring it to my user talk. I'm happy to both protect the page and have a word with any administrator who is not only declining to enforce an arbitration remedy personally (completely fine) but actually removing a request to have it enforced such that no other admin will see it either (not fine). Obstructing an arbitration remedy is not a good look. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)