Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 119

Amendment request: Privatemusings (June 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Beeblebrox at 20:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings:" The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." (emphasis added)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings:" The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." (emphasis added)
 * The last sentence (in bold) be struck from the decision.

Statement by Beeblebrox
This sentence of the decision is the entire basis for the policy at WP:PROJSOCK. I find it vague and unhelpful. The remainder of the socking policy already forbids the abusive use of multiple accounts. As ArbCom is specifically not empowered to dictate policy, I propose this sentence be stricken from the decision and links to it removed from the the socking policy, which would allow the community to freely modify the policy as it sees fit without seeming to be "going against an ArbCom decision." This will not actually change the socking policy itself.
 * it's not an actual barrier to change, but it looks like one to some people, I just want to remove that perception and then propose changes to the actual policy. We don't do policy by fiat anymore, but it seems to have happened here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My goal here is to take arbcom out of the equation entirely, not to have it take a side. As it stands now it seems to be on the side of the policy as written, that is literally all I am trying to change with this request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing little to no appetite for doing this, which is fine, the community is running with it anyway, so this can be considered withdrawn, or archived, or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
Do we really need to change a 14 year old case? The principles are all obiter dicta at best anyways. They may be persuasive as to what policy looked like at a time, but they flow from policy, not vice versa. The community could turn the see on the policy page into a see also or a contra, if it wanted to. The fact that a portion of the community uses the principle as a reason for not changing the policy is not a good argument for going around the community and changing the principle. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On the day that the case opened the policy looked like this and it included the following clauses that the principle probably flow from:
 * "Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages."
 * "Alternate accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternate puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."
 * "All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean," while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior."
 * While you might disagree with the drafters and it is more of a stretch than what modern arbcoms have done in the principles, I don't see them writing policy in whole cloth here. Getting arbcom to change a 14 year old principle because you anticipate some number of community members using it as a reason for opposing your preferred policy is getting arbcom to take a side on a policy debate. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that a principle might act as a persuasive authority contra your preferred change in some future discussion isn't a good reason to change it. If the community, or a significant minority of the community, thinks that the policy shouldn't change because the policy and the case are lockstep, so be it. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that a principle might act as a persuasive authority contra your preferred change in some future discussion isn't a good reason to change it. If the community, or a significant minority of the community, thinks that the policy shouldn't change because the policy and the case are lockstep, so be it. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
Principles in arbitration cases always reflect the state of policy at the time of the case. I don't think it is necessary for each change to a policy to trigger revisions to all affected principles for past cases. To make it easier for future reference, going forward it would be helpful if principles linked to specific versions of the appropriate policy pages. isaacl (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WereSpielChequers
It seems that the community has already modified the Arbcom decision by adding the clause I have marked in bold. ''Internal discussions: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Discussions that directly affect a legitimate alternate account in project space are permitted.''

So in my understanding, if an editor has an undisclosed alt account to edit articles on a topic they avoid with their main account, they can take part in AFD discussions with that account if one of the articles they edit with it has been nominated for deletion, and I think they can nominate that article for DYK, GA and FA, or file a request at RFPP or report a vandal at AIV. Providing of course they don't take part in any of those discussions with other unlinked accounts - but that is already covered in the policy. I think those exemptions are sensible and it would be useful if Arbcom was to confirm that it didn't intend to have the PrivateMusings decision taken sufficiently literally as to prevent an editor submitting an article for FA review etc.

That still leaves us with the hypothetical scenario where an editor submits an RFA after a snarky interaction with someone's alt account. Taking the current policy literally, the holder of the alt account would only be able to oppose with their main account, and not refer to the interaction with their alt account. If the editor stayed away from the RFA with their main account, but opposed with their sock using the rational "Oppose per [diff] this incident" that would be a blockable offense as they would be taking part in a project space discussion that only indirectly involved them. I don't see a good reason for such a bureaucratic restriction, and would be happy if Arbcom were to set aside that part of the Private Musings decision.

No one disputes that we need rules against undisclosed alt accounts being used for double voting. But I'm not seeing any advantage in the extra bureaucracy of stopping alt accounts from participating in project space, and there are some downsides, especially if the PrivateMusings decision were taken literally, rather than as now, radically reinterpreted.

Statement by Nosebagbear
I'm neutral on whether the arbs should enact the actual proposal, but should they choose not to, a clear-cut statement that they have no objection to the Community re-writing the policy and that this principle should not be viewed as preventing that would be an alternate means of settling the concern Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
Note that the footnote was removed by Jehochman with this edit yesterday. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (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.

Privatemusings: Clerk notes

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



Privatemusings: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is there in fact a desire among the community to revoke/reword PROJSOCK? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This has come up several times in the history of the Privatemusings case, and in every discussion someone explained that this principle represented ArbCom's understanding of the sockpuppetry policy at the time.    It was never intended to establish policy, even though it is currently treated as such. (As an aside, if ArbCom were to establish policy, it would do so as a remedy, not as a principle. Principles are derived from the community.)  For full disclosure, I supported removing this line from the sockpuppetry policy at Village pump (policy), and while that point was somewhat lost as part of a broader discussion, I still believe that this line no longer reflects the current consensus. The fact that the 2007 committee believed it to be an accurate summary of community policy is, in my view, irrelevant. –  bradv  🍁  21:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to change the principle. ArbCom principles are not binding statements of policy. Their impact is generally limited to providing a framework to decide a particular case at hand. They are certainly not designed to constrain the community's ability to adopt or change policy, especially over a decade later. Unlike Brad, without my arb hat on, I think the statement ought to be policy, but if the community disagrees with me, this principle really should not stand in the way. Best, KevinL ( alt of L235 · t · c) 23:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be very cautious about changing Principles and FoF from previous cases and do not see a compelling reason to do so here. That it resonated enough with the community to incorporate it into policy for years shows how ArbCom can exercise moral leadership. I'm glad we're amending PROJSOCK coming out of the VP discussion but don't think we need to amend our decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support the removal of the PROJSOCK footnote but I don't think we can do that as an ArbCom as it's beyond our scope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If this were a remedy, I'd be immediately all-in. However, it's a Principle based on community consensus, and we all know that can change over time. If people are using a Principle from 14 years ago as the sole justification for something, then there needs to be a demonstrated consensus that it's still valid (which, based on the recent RFC, is not the case). However, I do tend to agree with my colleagues above that it was consensus at the time. I'm not sure if striking is the best way to indicate this, or if we should just do something like appending a clarifying note. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues above. Principles can always only reflect the policy and guidelines at the time. They are not meant to be the basis of policy or guidelines. I think the best way forward is to remove the footnote from WP:PROJSOCK which was added two years after the case with this edit and leave the question whether to remove the rest to the community to discuss. Regards So  Why  12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with SoWhy's assessment and recommendation. I think this discussion gets the point across, such that editing an old case just isn't necessary. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What SoWhy said.  Maxim (talk)  14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 (June 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Benevolent human at 16:03, 15 June 2021 (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


 * 

Statement by Benevolent human
Should ARBPIA apply to allegations of whether Ilhan Omar invoked anti-Semitic canards when discussing Jewish Americans? The controversy stems from Ilhan Omar allegedly saying that Jewish Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. My view was: Dual loyalty implies people are doing nice things for Israel since they're loyal to Israel, but the US has, in part due to AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, collaboration on Iran issues, favorable trade arrangements, technology development, etc. My sense for the other view is that the Israeli-Arab conflict tends to also be mentioned tangentially in some but not all articles that discuss this incident, but articles often provide digressions and context aside from discussing the primary manner of hand. Here is a representative article:

Response to Nishidani: this came up in the context of discussing whether to add a new sentence to the lead, not in the context of the existing sections (which might not have the proper heading in any case).

Response to Muboshgu: Yes, Omar sometimes says things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict too at other times and in other statements. But not everything related to Israel is about its conflicts with its neighbors.

Response to Selfstudier: this is the conversation where we decided to take it here User_talk:The_Four_Deuces. We've been disputing this issue for weeks (for example, several of the closed RfCs on Talk:Ilhan Omar.

Response to The Four Deuces: I have a great deal of respect for you, so I was sad to see how misleading your statement was. The reinsertion after the failed RfC for AOC took into account the points made in the RfC and incorporated it (see here). I subsequently immediately let the issue drop and took a break after the temperature of the conversation got too high. I've consistently followed all Wikipedia policies and ARBCOM rulings. There's this recurrent narrative that keeps being brought up that because I opened three RfCs, I'm ignoring previous RfCs. The reality the first two RfCs were not allowed to come to conclusion because of disputes over the scope of ARBPIA. After the first two RfCs were disrupted, I waited until I was extended confirmed before reopening the present one to circumvent the issue, but now other editors who are trying to participate are being harassed that they can't because of ARBPIA. Which is what brought us here today. (Also seems manipulative to encourage me to open this ARBCOM request on your talk page, and then once I do so ask for sanctions be put against me there, but oh well.)

Response to Nableezy: Here's a counterexample: User_talk:Polymath03. I did continue Recent Change Patrol activities after I reached 500 edits.

Response to NightHeron:

Response to Barkeep49: We tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus: Talk:Ilhan_Omar. Then I tried to open an RfC, but other editors closed it and told me I had to come here: Benevolent human (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite: Although I've had a minority opinion, that itself isn't a violation of policy. I believe that I've followed the letter and spirit of all relevant policies and ARBCOM rulings to the best of my ability and have respected consensus when it has been established through proper procedures. If a consensus can be binding before a formal procedure like an RfC is complete, then I'm misunderstanding something, which is possible. My understanding of how things worked was that editors who happened to be at a page discussed amongst themselves, and if they couldn't come to a compromise, they then invoked a process like this to get the wider community to weigh in.

Beyond my Ken: My understanding was that only _one_ RfC failed. The first two RfCs were cancelled for alleged procedural reasons before they were allowed to start. I'll admit that because the third RfC has now failed, this entire question might now be moot. Given that the RfC has now failed, this probably shouldn't be brought up for another RfC for at least a year. In my view, the consensus was not established until this recent RfC was closed.

Response to JayBeeEll: I did follow up on our conversation by asking on ANI, but brought it here when nobody there responded.

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
Even narrowly construed, I believe ARBPIA4 applies. It's clear from Bh's comments that they want the lead to summarize at least two 2019 Omar controversies. In the first, Omar's "Benjamins" tweet, the context was possible sanction of Omar and Rashida Tlaib for their support of the BDS movement. The second, in which Omar was accused of using the dual-loyalty anti-semitic canard, began as a talk by Omar and Tlaib. Omar's comments were about the I-P conflict. Bh is right that it's possible to support or criticize Israel for things that have nothing to do with Arabs or Palestine, but all of the incidents motivating this RfC are inextricably tied to the conflict ARBPIA4 covers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Just in case it is not clear, this concerns a large section with three subdivisions at Ilhan Omar. As the main section title itself declares, these paragraphs all deal with the I/P conflict.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Muboshgu
Benevolent human references the dual loyalty canard, which is directly referencing Israel. The Israel-Palestine issue is to be "broadly construed", so arguing that dual loyalty references American Jews and not Israel is an absurd argument to make. With Omar's loud support of BDS, there is no separating out the I-P issue from Omar on issues that pertain more directly to American Jews. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
I commented at that talk page that, at a minimum, "broadly construed" covers the case and it may not even need that particular caveat for efficacy.Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This came here too quickly, more discussion should have taken place at the talk page and I think consensus would have come about fairly quickly in the normal course.Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Humph, seems more going on here than I was aware of, the initial filing now does not appear as a standalone attempt to work something out but instead a continuation of something prior.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces
Benevolent human, formerly User:Pretzel butterfly, has created three unsuccessful RfCs about inclusion of accusations of anti-Semitism against Ilhan Omar since June 1 2021: Talk:Ilhan Omar [20:21, 1 June 2021], Talk:Ilhan Omar [02:25, 12 June 2021] and Talk:Ilhan Omar [21:22, 12 June 2021]. At last count the vote for the third RfC, which is still open, stands at 17-3 against.

Benevolent human previously tried to include accusations of anti-Semitism against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1 [18:33, 18 December 2020] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1 [22:29, 6 January 2021] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. [14:32, 17 April 2021] After failing in the RfC, Pretzel Butterfly reinserted the disputed text. See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1 [00:52, 11 January 2021]. Omar and AOC are close allies in the U.S. Congress.

This editor is clearly disruptive, arguing their views long after it was clear they had no support. I recommend a topic ban for U.S. politics. Under their previous account, I informed the editor of American politics AE [22:43, 10 January 2021]. (While I used the previous date of 1932 - it's now 1992 - I think the notice was valid.)

TFD (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

, Dispute resolution covers content disputes, but the issue here was whether the 500/30 Rule, prohibiting new editors from editing Palestine-Israel articles, applied, which is not a content issue. TFD (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jackattack1597
I really don't see how this is remotely ripe for Arbcom, even as a clarification request. If any action is considered here, it should be a topic ban for Benevolent human, and extended confirmed should be revoked for gaming by welcoming many editors who made a handful of edits, but neither of those require arbcom intervention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
The only part of this that could conceivably use ArbCom weighing in on is what are the dispute resolution routes for this? Would this be like some other arbitration enforcement where a single admin can make a call but a consensus of admins would be needed to overrule it? I do find the opening editor's zealousness on this topic to be somewhere between mildly disruptive to blatantly tendentious, and the gaming of EC status is also something that ArbCom ruling about would be helpful as prior editors who I thought were gaming the system by repeatedly making tiny edits at such a rapid clip to get past the barrier and then shortly after reverting to normal editing (eg adding whitspace between an infobox and the lead and then removing whitespace between the infobox and the lead) or welcoming editors at a rate of about 4 per minute, despite never having welcomed an editor before needing to reach EC status to start another RFC within the topic area. Those things I think could use ArbCom speaking about. Whether or not this obviously related subject is related is not one of the things that really need your attention though.  nableezy  - 19:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NightHeron
It shouldn't be necessary for ArbCom to clarify what's already completely clear to everyone except for one user. Talk:Ilhan Omar prominently displays a detailed warning that certain parts of the article are subject to ARBPIA. This obviously means the parts dealing with controversies over Omar's statements on US support for Israel in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Several editors explained to Bh the applicability of ARBPIA, see      , but Bh insists that all of us are wrong. The real issue seems to be Bh's WP:IDHT. NightHeron (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
Having looked at this article from an admin point of view, I would be looking at the two editors who have persistently tried to insert negative content into this BLP, those two being User:Benevolent human and User:Toa_Nidhiki05. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC) This is probably a separate issue, so striking. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
This request is beyond ludicrous. Three RfCs haven't gone BH's way, so they come here to try and game the system and do an end-run around obvious community consensus. There should be no pussyfooting around this, BH needs to be topic banned from Omar and AOC, perhaps the entire subject of antisemitism. They are clearly disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian
I [procedurally, but also with a rationale based on strength of arguments and the fact it was snowing...] closed the first RfC (having no prior involvement on that page, and nothing significant since) after having determined that Omar's comments and position about Israel and its actions (in the context of the Arab-Israel conflict) are obviously, "broadly construed", "related to the Arab-Israeli" conflict. BH challenged this and I explained on their talk page. I don't think there's too much grounds for clarification, except maybe re-affirming that "broadly construed" means "when in doubt, yes". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll
I agree with the majority of editors above that this clearly falls under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and with a number of editors who don't even think the qualifier "broadly construed" is necessary to see that this is the case. I told Benevolent human as much back on June 1. I am disappointed to see that they've continued pushing the issue, as well as trying to game the 500-edit limitation. --JBL (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2021 (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.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I will point to Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles and ask if any forms of dispute resolution have been tried before coming here? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In your response to Barkeep49, you write that you tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus. However, it looks to me like everyone except for you thinks this is covered by the ARBPIA area of conflict; your disagreement alone isn't enough to say the community couldn't come to a consensus. That's not how consensus on Wikipedia works. I would decline this clarification request without action. The way it works is that if an admin actually takes an arbitration enforcement action on the basis that the dispute is covered by ARBPIA, then that action is presumed to be correct unless it is reversed on appeal, per note 4 of . However, there may not have been an explicit AE action here. KevinL ( alt of L235 · t · c) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, ARBPIA applies. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that no one besides Benevolent human seems to think it falls outside ARBPIA, but hoped that we might say something different. I chastise BH for running to the other parent. With regards to a topic ban, AE or AN can handle things. I strongly discourage folks from running to here every time they are unsure if a page is in an area or not. ArbCom specifically clarified ARBPIA's scope just to avoid this. Requesting at ARCA for a single page is a massive waste of editor time. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae (July 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on  anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * After discussion with both parties, the Committee resolves that be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on  anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Praxidicae has agreed to abide by a mutual interaction ban for the same duration. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
 * Revocation of the interaction ban in its entirety. Or, second choice, change sanction to "Ritchie333 and Praxidicae are indefinitely prohibited from replying to each other in discussions"

Statement by Ritchie333
In August 2019, I was subject to an indefinite interaction ban with the user “Praxidicae”. The announcement of the ban is here. Since then I was blocked twice on 9 August and 19 October 2019. I did not appeal the first block as I was taking an extended leave of absence when it was placed. I appealed the second block successfully; the appeal is here.

During this period, I was having issues with off-wiki events unrelated to Wikipedia (which Arbcom have been informed of), which caused me to lash out at people. I apologised for doing so at the time, and can only apologise again. Administrators should be held to a high level of civility and accountability, and the best way I can illustrate that is to lead by example. I do not foresee incidents like these happening again. I make no comments on the views of others in the above threads, and would invite you to read them and judge for yourself.

The principal reason for reviewing the ban is I would like to be able to cite these events as an example in the ongoing discussions regarding the Universal Code of Conduct. In particular, it would be a useful example to highlight how administrators can and should be sanctioned, and how harassment-based sanctions must be placed carefully otherwise they may reduce the community’s trust in how they are handled. As a secondary reason, it would be helpful to delete articles this user tags as, which I can't see being problematic.

As a secondary choice, and an alternative to vacating the ban, I have proposed an alternative to tighten the restriction to just replies in discussions. However, even if the ban is revoked entirely, I do not intend to directly interact or converse with the other user, and that will continue to be the case.

It has been drawn to my attention that a further reason for vacating the ban would be it would allow Praxidicae to have a reasonable run at Request for Adminship. I have no opinion on this, and should it occur, I will recuse from the RfA and not comment on it; in a similar manner, I recused from !voting at Requests for adminship/Fram 2.

I have reviewed this appeal with Arbcom, who support posting it here. For obvious reasons, I have not notified the other party directly (does this violate an interaction ban?) and would be helpful if a clerk or other editor could do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The reason I want to talk about the issue at UCOC discussions is because every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true. Admins can be sanctioned, and at times they should be sanctioned. In my case, it caused me to take a long hard look at what I was doing to myself and whether I had a sustainable career on Wikipedia. While admins shouldn't go around blocking other admins gung-ho, sometimes just doing it to send the signal "hey, admins are not above the law and held to higher standards - cut that out" gives the community a general feeling they'll be heard. I've never born grudges; the example that comes to mind is I'm still on good terms with the admin who issued the second block, PMC, and while we've not talked much since, it's all been civil and polite from my view. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but my feeling is - why take the risk? It only takes one admin to say "no I don't like that" and block. cf: Floq's comment "Right now, he can't talk about it at all, even if he 100% admits fault". I get the feeling there seem to be a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the site (cf. WP:FRAMGATE) and it's a shame they can't just come directly to me (on or off wiki) and air their concerns, as I am reasonable. The specific driver for this is is in the WMF's Christel Steinberger's proposal for a UCOC drafting committee, which included the following : "There would also be Wikimedians who have falsely been accused of harassment" and I think that's a fair description of what's happened to me (eg: Pawkingthree's evidence). I can see the rationale behind a short block for someone for being in a bad mood and personally attacking someone, or for doing something stupid, but I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else. I'm happy to talk more about my concerns in a less public area if you're amenable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The appeal is as originally stated. The reply above is a bit more of a detailed explanation of why I might be incredibly motivated to work with the WMF and ensure the UCOC works for as many editors are possible, taking in a wide variety of views and experiences. I hope it's kind of obvious that "a bunch of people are out to get me" is a non-starter for an actual appeal. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To give you an example, the comment that led to the block on 9 August 2019 was made because I was frustrated hardly any comments around the sanctions addressed the underlying issues, which are basically assume good faith and please don't bite the newbies, and doing this to female editors writing articles about women also impacts systemic bias. Beeblebrox wrote a great comment the other day which conveys my views precisely. "We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing. The whole premise is flawed. Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing, they are not all deviously plotting to destroy Wikipedia by laying low for a couple years, only to spring their trap when the time is right." I would have been less likely to lash out, personally attack people in frustration, and then take a lengthy leave of absence, if we had been discussing these issues. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For another example of how the interaction ban harmed the encyclopedia, in my view, consider Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330, where I was unable to properly assist and change her viewpoint : "It just feels disrespectful and frankly like bullying the way people behave on here. Supposedly you want more women editors. I'm just not seeing this in the behaviour of some of the people on here". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make one more comment and then shush as I feel I've said enough on this matter now .... the disagreement (from my end) wasn't CSDs. After all, I recently spoke highly of DGG, despite having disagreed on quite a few CSDs, and I've also disagreed with Kudpung on similar issues from time to time, and I certainly don't have any issues in getting on with him. If you want to discuss further I'd prefer to do it quietly via email, rather than filling this board up with a wall of text. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Praxidicae
I can’t make a meaningful statement as I have a lot going on in real life that takes precedence and I do not have access to a computer for the foreseeable future. I do however oppose any loosening of this restriction or any changes given the multiple violations and I’m confused by the rfa statement as this iban doesn’t preclude me from running, though I have no desire to ever rfa on English Wikipedia so it’s a non starter. I don’t have the mental bandwidth to say or deal with this beyond this brief statement. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nick
I'm not at all convinced this is a good idea - I don't believe has ever really understood how seriously troubling his behaviour was in relation to Praxidicae and as a result, I'm not entirely convinced they're genuinely well placed to avoid repeating such behaviour - though of course a repetition of such behaviour this time around might result in more stricter sanction, an outcome both justifiable and regrettable in equal measure. That being the case, I generally support retaining the IBAN as previously imposed.

I also find myself being incredibly puzzled by the mention of RfA - if Ritchie doesn't intend to take part in any RfA concerning Praxidicae, why would they need the interaction ban removed, what would they intend to say that is prevented by an interaction ban but which isn't involvement in the RfA itself ? I know Ritchie has tried to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper at RfA, so I'm particularly curious as to why he thinks he needs the IBAN lifted in relation to any Praxidicae RfA.

-- Nick (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by valereee

 * , I am shocked that anyone could interpret Ritchie's work at RfA as him trying to manoeuvre himself into a position as something akin to a gatekeeper there. That is an ugly accusation, and if anything the opposite is true. Ritchie has tried to keep an eye out for likely candidates and has made open invitations for interested editors to contact him so he can help them through the process. We need more people doing what Ritchie does at RfA, not fewer.
 * And re: why mention a potential Prax RfA at all -- because the iban could be held against Prax there. Lifting the ban lifts it from both of them, which means Prax would have one fewer potential issue to address during an RfA. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nigel Ish
, I read Ritchie's statement as saying that they didn't want the interaction ban being a barrier to Praxidicae running for admin rather than some sort of gatekeeper role. Whether that would work is a different matter, however, as memories are long at RfA. Ritchie raises an interesting point in that they want to use their case to inform discussions about the proposed UCOC, where it may be relevant. Does (or anyone else involved in the case) have a problem with discussing it in the context of the UCOC? If not, could it be possible to lift the interaction ban just for this purpose?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by FeydHuxtable
Seems a sensible request. To address Nicks "analyses": Ritchie's no more a gatekeeper than most other RfA regs – he's not one of the most effective opposers. As per Valeree, Ritchie's more of a door opener at RfA – he likes to find people to nominate & support their ticket, as do several other admins. In a small way, requesting this iban lift helps open the RfA door for Praxidicae, should she be interested in that. Ritchie's well liked, perhaps especially by the dozen or so RfA regs that have met him in person (he rolled 16 on Charisma). While Ritchie now views his past interactions with Prax as a mistake, from other perspectives they were far from "seriously troubling". They could be seen as reasonable pro newbie balancing of Prax's quite high quality control standards. Some may see the (sort of) 1-way iBan as an injustice and be less likely to oppose if it's lifted. (To be clear we're probably only talking about 1-4 opposes here, and none would be likely to explicitly say they were opposing due to the Ritchie iban. Or maybe some are seeing it as a 2 way ban & hence a sanction against Prax, & again a lift could possibly avoid 1-2 potential RfA opposers) Other than the reasons Ritchies gave, lifting the iban could avoid situations like the 2nd block which was technically correctly but judged by the community as unnecessary. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
I like and respect both Ritchie and Prax, and found Ritchie's behavior at the time puzzling and disappointing. I believe him when he says the circumstances that led to that have changed.

If I understand right, there are three main reasons to reduce/remove:
 * Ritchie wants to be able to use this as an example of how admins can and should be sanctioned, in an ongoing discussion about the UCC. Right now, he can't talk about it at all, even if he 100% admits fault
 * Ritchie wants to be able to delete CSD noms made by Prax
 * Someone else has pointed out to Ritchie that the very existence of Prax's iban with him might harm any future Prax RFA; particularly if Prax was prevented from explaining the circumstances. I don't think this amounts to Ritchie trying to gatekeep RFA.

My lingering concerns are threefold:
 * If Ritchie wants to be able to bring this up as an example in a discussion, that's a bad idea unless he takes 100% responsibility for the problems. If he makes any criticism whatsoever of Prax, no matter how gentle or how forgiving or how magnanimous he thinks he's being, then that's just picking at scabs, and definitely something to not do.
 * The CSD-related problem with Ritchie and Prax was, I believe, due to Ritchie aggressively disagreeing with Prax's CSD noms. While I'm sure Ritchie regrets how he handled that disagreement, I'm fairly sure they still really disagree with each other about it.  I therefore don't really find Ritchie's second reason convincing.
 * Due to past bad blood, I'm concerned that if Ritchie and Prax start talking to each other, there's a chance it will slowly disintegrate into a negative feedback loop.

In general, depending on how Prax responds, I think the ArbCom should be open to the idea of removing or relaxing the iban, but maybe with an unofficial agreement (not written down somewhere as an Official Sanction) between two good faith editors:
 * Ritchie should agree not to bring up this iban as a discussion point, unless he makes zero comments criticizing Prax
 * Ritchie should not decline any of Prax's CSD noms (they should be free to accept them)
 * Both editors should be asked to for the most part stay away from each other, and if they do interact occasionally, they should bend over backwards to be kind

Maybe that's too complicated, I don't know. If this does pass, I hope it does some good for both editors to note that someone (me) who's judgement I think is thought well of by both parties, believes that the other editor is generally a good egg, and that they can be trusted to abide by something informally agree to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Vermont
Speaking as a Meta-Wiki administrator and someone involved in UCoC development, the vast majority of UCoC discussions and consultations occur on Meta-Wiki, with the exception of a handful of local language consultations, such as this. I am not sure about the English Wikipedia's policy as it relates to Arbitration Committee sanctions and their applicability to actions on other Wikimedia projects; generally, if the IBAN applies solely to the English Wikipedia, it would not significantly hinder Ritchie's ability to participate in UCOC discussions in the capacity that they described. Regards, Vermont (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
I don't feel that the outcome of the amendment request should be determined by a desire to use this situation as an example in code of conduct discussions. Other editors can bring it up.

I disagree with setting conditions that limit what can be said in code of conduct discussions. If the commenter cannot speak candidly, it's harder to weigh the significance of the example of admin sanctions being raised. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
No comment on the request itself, and it predates my time, but every now and again somebody says "admins never get sanctioned" or "admins are above the law", and I want to say - no, that's not true I suspect that may have been my comment at Requests for adminship/Vami IV claiming that admins don't get blocked unilaterally by another admin, and as a counter-example I was given a link to Ritchie being blocked by an arb enforcing this IBAN.

So yes, I suppose an admin was technically blocked for something (albeit I'm not sure arbitration enforcement of an ArbCom remedy counts). One needn't look further than Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_44 to see exactly what the cost was of sanctioning an admin. That is, 37,923 words (253,158 characters) of hot air. Given this, it's debatable whether this is a good example to prove "admins aren't above the law". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree
The problem with relaxing the ban to only include replying to each other in discussions, is that both editors are active in speedy deletions, with Praxidicae looking to rid Wikipedia of spam and COI and Ritchie coming from the opposite end of wanting to rescue articles. The October 2019 block of Ritchie came about when he deleted the copyvio and rebooted an article that Praxidicae had tagged for deletion. Whether that counted as "undoing each other's edits" as described in WP:IBAN was much debated at User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_103. In that discussion Premeditated Chaos said one of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them and AmandaNP said, it seems like Ritchie is stalking Praxidicae's contributions with the amount of time between edits and frequency of this occurring. This is directly prohibited in our harassment policy and is why the IBan was enforced here. Ritchie has denied doing this, but I think it would be wise for him to continue to avoid removing, addressing or otherwise involving himself at all with any of Praxidicae's CSD tags if the ban is loosened.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jackattack1597
I'm just chiming in here to note that, looking at the discussion, most of the comments after Ritchie's Iban was imposed seemed to mainly be due to heightened tensions after the Fram case, and people dissatisfied with a decision based on private evidence, not just because of an admin being sanctioned. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Another comment: Isn't this an appeal of a 2-way interaction ban, and not of a one-way ban? I've seen a couple of people refer to this as a one-way Iban appeal, but isn't the interaction ban 2-way?Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Question from SN54129
on account of respecting you, etc., I wasn't going to comment, but your latest update is begging, I think, for some clarification. You see—and I may well have completely misread—your original reasons for wanting the one-way IBAN vacated were that it would allow you to talk about it on meta, delete copyvios and support Praxicicae's RfA on en.wp. However, according to your latest statement, the one-way IBAN should be removed because a bunch of people out to get me and want to throw me off the site and that it's up to them they can't air their concerns, as I am reasonable. Further, are you now saying that you "have falsely been accused of harassment" (since you say that's a fair description of what's happened to me...I have been on the receiving end of harassment here from trolls and banned editors and would never do it to anyone else. So have the grounds of appeal shifted this being something for which you apologised for in your opening statement (indeed, profusely) to something which should never have happened and was completely unfair to you. These are two very different things. In the first case, there is an acceptance of culpability but a promise the same behaviour won't happen again; in the second, there's pushback against the original premise and a concomitant implication of your own blamelessness.  ——  Serial  11:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence from Andrew Davidson
I've not had much to do with this matter but happen to notice a fresh example which indicates that the root cause issue here is overzealous tagging by Praxidicae. The topic in question is Mrs Hinch – a famous cleaner, influencer and successful author. The recent timeline is:


 * Article moved from draft to mainspace
 * Praxidicae moves article back to draft space
 * Article moved back to mainspace after further cleanup, which continued
 * Praxidicae tags the article as G11 (spam)
 * The G11 is declined by Pawnkingthree as "not purely promotional"
 * The article is sent to AfD by another editor
 * The outcome seemed clear and the discussion was acrimonious so I snow closed it as Keep

The editors who tried to delete this seemed quite out of step with the general consensus and so it is they that should pull their horns in. The use of G11 seemed quite excessive and such tagging will naturally generate some pushback. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement By Celestina007
Andrew Davidson, In as much as I have respect for you and your dedication to the collaborative project I am nonplus that you mention Praxi in the same sentence where the word “Over zealous” is used, she sets a higher bar, but overzealous? I don’t believe this and furthermore I believe that is rude & considering to them and their body of work. Per your example above, if Praxi moved the article to Draftspace & the editor unilaterally moves it back to mainspace without a dialogue of any sort, that is wrong, The editor should have submitted it via AFC instead of move-war. As for Your second point, if the article is promotional in nature then pray tell why shouldn’t it be G11 tagged? Thirdly, an admin declining a G11 request is immaterial. Lastly when an article has been moved to draft and the same editor moves back to mainspace that is move warring like I earlier stated and sending the article to AFD is usually the best course of action. Celestina007 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
FWIW I can think of two cases from the past year wherein an editor was blocked for violating an IBAN for asking about the IBAN (specifically for seeking to turn a one-way into a two-way). Both were overturned by the community on appeal, but a subsequent effort (by me) to codify that into policy did not gain consensus. Also, I started an RFC that would have allowed RFA candidates to discuss an IBAN during an RFA (to answer questions about it), and that didn't gain consensus, either. Finally, there was a recent appeal of an 18-month-old IBAN that had not been violated, and the appeal did not gain consensus because one party didn't agree to it. A subsequent village pump thread to put an expiration date on IBANs (not by me) was snow opposed. I assume links aren't necessary, but my point is: there is definitely enforcement of IBANs that is overzealous in my view but that appears to be supported by the community nevertheless (so I think Ritchie's risk of getting into trouble just for discussing the IBAN is non-trivial), and it appears the community doesn't want one-way IBANs lifted without the agreement of both parties (and Prax doesn't agree here). I don't know if the IBAN here should be lifted or not (I don't know the details of this case) but I think the concerns all around are reasonable. IBANs are a tricky problem in my view, and my sense is that the community takes them very seriously and enforces them very strictly. Levivich 16:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
Given the history of how the ban has been enforced I can fully understand why Ritchie is concerned about mentioning the ban at all in the UCOC discussions. Given that experienced editors in good standing have here expressed different views about whether it would or would not be a violation then this request seems all the more sensible. The adage that it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission very much does not hold true for Wikipedia editors with active sanctions.

I have my own issues regarding Prax (entirely off-topic here) and I know Ritchie from meetups (back when such things wouldn't kill us) so I'm not going to comment on the merits or otherwise or removing the ban. If it is not removed or loosened then it seems to me that Ritchie's primary desire could be facilitated by a clarification/amendment explicitly stating that they may comment about the IBAN and their experiences of it and its enforcement in discussions about dispute resolution processes, experiences, etc. as long as any references to Prax are avoided where possible and kept to the absolute minimum where it isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (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.

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Clerk notes

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


 * Notified Praxidicae per request above. My understanding is that leaving a required formal notice when appealing, such as Arbitration CA notice, is allowable as it is part of the appeal process. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am recused on this matter. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just as an initial thought: Richie's reasoning seems largely with wanting to be able to talk about the iban in UCoC discussions. To me that is simply not a compelling reason to even consider lifting it, and in the case of two-way ibans it is substantially more compelling if both users desire the ban being lifted. I have not totally made my mind up here but my first impression is to say no. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic under discussion here is whether the interaction ban between these two editors should be retained. Please limit your remarks to that topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also do not see this as banning Richie from discussing the very existence of the ban. That can be done in UCoC discussions without mentioning or criticizing Prax. She has also stated she has no intention to run at RFA, ever, so that point is moot. That leaves only the CSD nominations. If it were still the bad old days where CSD noms regularly experienced massive backlogs I think I might see it differently, but times have changed for the better in that regard and I just don't one admins ability to reply to one other users nominations and substantially harming the project. And as I mentioned above, in the case of a two-way iban, it makes a rather large difference if the other party wants the ban lifted, and that's not the case here. I just don't see this going forward at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ritche's response to Vermont set off alarm bells for me, notwithstanding the self-awareness in the response to SN54129. An IBAN is not a secret prohibition which can not itself be discussed. I can think of many ways to refer to this experience in UCOC discussion without running afoul of the terms of the ban. "I've seen editors assert administrators don't get sanctioned, but I am an administrator and am under an interaction ban after a disagreement rooted in wiki-philosophy got out of hand. The ban feels unnecessary and unfair to me, but I comply with it." Basically, I statements. You've pointed to NOTTHEM, which is largely the same idea. If an admin would block over comments like those, that's a problem as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm missing something. Is this about fear of over-zealous blocking admins, or a perceived need to speak in detail about Praxidicae in order to contribute to UCOC discussions? --BDD (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not inclined at this point to support any changes to the status quo. A lot of the statement points to some sort of a gentlemen's agreement to leave each other alone, but such an agreement would really need the consent of both parties, which does not currently exist.  Maxim (talk)  16:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My thoughts align with Maxim's on this. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't find a convincing reason in the statements above to lift the sanction. As BDD notes, the sanction can be discussed without violating the interaction ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This particular interaction ban has been a little bugbear of mine since it was enacted, because the whole way it was enacted didn't seem right. It happened off-wiki, based on on-wiki evidence, we imposed an interaction ban, but did not hold a full case. Most importantly, I did not see a clear route of appeal. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to engage with both parties to find a workable outcome. Now, since we have a clear route of appeal - here, ARCA, on wiki - I feel far more happy about actually moving forward in a pragmatic manner. Looking at Ritchie's reasons for appealing, I agree with the other Arbitrators. There is little of substance that would require an appeal. . you may discuss the topic ban, and your feelings around it, which should be sufficient for the UCoC discussions. You may not discuss Praxidicae, her behaviours, or her actions. I am sorry that you feel that the encyclopedia is being harmed by your inability to work in certain areas, but unfortunately, that is a direct consequence of the history.   It is clear that Praxidicae does not want this interaction ban removed, and since two-way interaction bans are sometimes needed - some individuals just don't get along - I'd need to see a very very good reason to lift over the objections of one party. <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>) 19:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do any fellow arbs or Ritchie333 think that a motion or amendment like that described by Thryduulf would help? It sounds like we're in agreement that the IBAN shouldn't be construed as some sort of gag order that can't itself be mentioned in discussions. In that sense, the motion or amendment wouldn't actually change anything. Personally, I agree that repealing this sanction isn't on the table until both parties have some willingness for that to happen, just as I agree that Ritchie's possible inability to discuss the experience from his perspective is not to the benefit of the project (nor to any individual's benefit). --BDD (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support something like that to explicitly cover the situation that Ritchie can discuss the ban itself, but also to explicitly say that he may not discuss Praxidicae in such statements. However, I doubt I'm talented enough to create such a motion! <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>) 19:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that we have already clarified that this is not a gag order and he can discuss the ban itself, so a motion that doesn't change anything probably isn't necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The root of the ban was CSDs, which Prax and Ritchie seem to have fundamentally different views on, and they were unable to resolve their differences. Seeing as Prax wishes the ban kept, it does not appear that the parties will be magically getting along anytime soon. This reflects my view that sometimes it is okay that admins have sanctions against them if it solves a problem. Now, I understand that there is a desire to discuss the ban in the context of UCOC, and I am more than fine with that. I think it silly that, as BDD puts it, we have this informal "gag rule" around bans. Mentioning that one has a ban and diving into the consequences of it are hardly disrupting the encyclopedia. I don't know if we need a formal motion, I think it may be enough that we note such discussion is fine, and that should Ritchie or Prax get blocked for that, we would almost certainly overturn it. Though if someone wants to write something up I'd certainly consider it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree that it goes deeper than just CSD's, but seeing as Prax does not wish it lifted, I think the point is somewhat moot anyway. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Ritchie333 and Praxidicae


Enacted - Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) As proposer. I think having a gag rule around IBans isn't really necessary. One can talk about the fact that they have a ban without talking about the other person. I think Ritchie is a useful case study in how admins may have sanctions on them, and he seems to have some desire to put that perspective to use. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) <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>) 18:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Beebs that this was obvious to me, but it's clearly not treated as such, and thus worth explicitly stating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Given we're here....yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Primefac (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) I am also affirming my position that this should be a default assumption for interaction bans. —BDD (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) I think we're in agreement that this was already the case and this motion doesn't change anything. I therefore consider the matter to have already been clarified sufficiently without this motion, but I don't feel it so strongly that I'll oppose it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) –  bradv  🍁  16:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 (July 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 13:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4
 * Amend the section, replacing RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. with RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc.

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
In several ARBPIA RMs, most recently at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, many non-500/30 editors have commented in RMs, unaware that the restriction applies to those discussions. ArbCom seemed to clarify (by majority, although not without dissent) in this ARCA that RMs are included in that provision, but didn't amend the actual remedy with their clarification. It's not particularly convenient for editors to have to link to and explain Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4 (an ARCA archive) every time a comment is struck and a non-500/30 user is confused by, or objects to, the striking. Requesting that the section be amended, as it was in this amendment, so that it's clearer for users, and so that Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement can be amended with the new wording as well.

I think it would also help if Template:Requested move/dated was amended to include a reminder of the restriction on ARBPIA4 pages. (edit: I've cooked up something for this part at Template_talk:Requested_move)
 * The editors would still have to read through the ARCA just to pick out the addition of two words. Very few people should have to read the ARCAs at all; in that ARCA it probably would've been better to have formally passed a motion to amend with the changes, similar to what is proposed here. That way the result is preserved for easy access, and the templates can also be updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the ARCA doesn't offer guidance. I'm saying it's an inconvenience to expect editors to read it. For convenience sake, for a change like that, it's IMO better to just amend the remedy text. That way the information is in one place and available on the templates too. Plus it's shorter: the full ARCA is ~1,400 words long; the actual change is 2, and the entire remedy is 300. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * For whatever it's worth, re The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. My reading was that editing on talk pages is already caught within the provision, and then is exempted below. I'm not sure the alternate interpretation works; if editing on talk pages is already not part of the prohibition (are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict), then what would be the point of adding it to The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:? There'd be no need to exempt something that is already not prohibited. The wording of B(1) seems to support this interpretation, since it suggests the exemption doesn't apply to other namespaces (hence implying that the prohibition does already apply to non-article content). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * TBH I thought this would be an uncontroversial change of adding two words to the actual text and updating the templates to match, and that this would hopefully help with the issues. It's a simple question IMO: is it exempt or isn't it? If it is then I don't really understand how ArbCom could simultaneously agree that RMs are part of the exemptions, but be concerned about actually adding this into the list that already exists. And if the current ArbCom says isn't then that clarification would probably be appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by selfstudier
This happens frequently, non ec's even open Afd's in the topic area (Diff]. The problem is mainly although not exclusively with new editors that wander into the topic area without a clear idea of what's involved and don't really pay attention to the notices. I think it might continue to occur even if the notices and whatnot were all clarified, which they anyway should be. Maybe new editors need a very clear heads up about AP, IP and the rest.Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In practice, an RM isn't much different to an RFC (and can be just as fraught) so if a non-ec can't participate in an RFC (they can't) then they should not be able to participate in an RM either. They can discuss it (or an RFC) on the talk page, sure, why not, just not formally participate or "vote".Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to confess that I find this situation baffling. There is a procedure that experienced editors understand, or thought they did, with a theoretical hole in it, namely RMs and I guess AfDs as well, because it says "etc". Instead of filling in the hole and making things easier to explain (to inexperienced editors) we seem instead to want to make the hole(s) official, to make the explanations even more complicated and to allow once more the easy access of socks to formal discussions. An AfD is certainly not an edit request and I think it is better to think of an RM as an RFC about the title of an article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What I would want to say if it were as easy as that is something like "Non ec's cannot participate in formal discussions in IP area" where "formal discussions" means anything with a "vote", wherever it is.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
What is the difference between RFC and RM. Though both process are not decided by majority but by strength of arguments still if there are many proponents of certain view ussally it will be decided accordingly. The provision meant to disallow socks to influence on such process so there is no logic to allow it in AFD but not in RFC which both happen on talk page --Shrike (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To the opposers then please make a motion to allow AFD explicitly (though I still don' see any logic in allowing RFC but not AFD) Shrike (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
An RM is essentially just a type of RfC and there is no logic to having different rules about who can contribute to them. The previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority, and soon afterwards a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." If the Committee wishes to add RM after RfC in the body of the remedy, fine, otherwise I don't see the case for any changes.

On the matter of advising editors of the rules, things are suboptimal. No ordinary editor should ever have to search ARCA. The solution is to keep Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles always up to date with all and only the current rules on display and all other stuff relegated to wikilinks.

To those who want to reverse the previous decision about RMs, you should know that RMs are frequently the most hotly debated issues on ARBPIA talk pages. What will happen if the restriction is lifted is that RMs will return to the Wild West where a lot of IPs and new accounts show up and !vote as a block. I'm confident that that is often the result of off-wiki canvassing. Although closers can choose to ignore some of the chaff, why should they have to? Non-ec people who want to comment can do so outside the boundaries of the formal RM. Zerotalk 01:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 182.1.15.37
Sorry. as an non-autoconfirmed user, i must have objectional argument about the amendment request. I think the previous ARCA agreed with this conclusion by a clear majority about, and a clerk summarised the decision with a footnote at Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles which says "In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." I not involved in the motion but i recognized that it is more applicable. But for me, the decision is not enough. I also propose an amendment to the ARBIPA4 to includes a page move ban topic-wide for all contents related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, any users, even EC users, cannot move any ARBIPA page or contents unless there is strong and reasonable consensus about it because all page moves initiative by EC users is too bad so only administrators can move any contents related to the Arab-Israeli page, which in other words, page move right by non-administrator for the topic is revoked. (Please read the concern on archival talk page). 182.1.13.41 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian
I absolutely don't see any reason for the current discretionary sanctions page putting a clarification in a note. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. Footnote: In July 2020, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy. needs to be changed. Either A) get rid of the refn and integrate it directly into the text: "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc." (which if it weren't an ArbCom page I'd suggest somebody boldly change it) or B) remove the footnote (if for some odd reason RMs are not "internal project discussions"). Of course I'm for option A) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia
Addressing the problem of widespread misuse of sockpuppet accounts was a major driver behind ARBPIA4, a major element of that misuse being to stack consensus-establishing discussions. In theory, consesus is supposed to be established by the quality of arguments; in practice, it often comes down to a vote in all but name. Sockpuppet accounts were being used to weigh the scales. The 500/30 rule was introduced to make life more difficult for sockmasters (though part of its effectiveness depends on the assiduous identification and blocking of sock accounts). If I remember correctly, the allowing of commenting on affected talkpages by non-EC editors was a later concession. I think that the opening up of any process which depends on the establishment of consensus, including RMs, should be given very careful thought. In terms of explaining to non-EC editors why their comments have been struck from consensus-establishing discussions, I'm puzzled why just suppying a link to the ARBPIA General Sanction and pointing out the 500/30 restriction wouldn't, in most cases, be sufficient. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  11:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

<> With regard to what constitutes content, see the ARBPIA4 definition of the "area of conflict", which, at least to me, seems to imply that "content" includes more than what is contained in articles themselves:

A discussion of the wording to adopt was carried out during the ARBPIA workshop stage here, with the wording proposed by being adopted.

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm not opposed to what's being proposed by why not create a wiki-shortcut to make it easier to link to editors when needing to explain? More broadly I think this should be part of an effort to better memorialize ARCAs on case pages which I know is something that has had some arb/clerk discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * PR: I disagree with the idea that, short of a formal motion, ArbCom cannot offer guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that we aren't required to offer guidance via motion, but I also believe it can be prudent to choose a motion over simple statements at ARCA, especially when an issue is likely to recur and may be confusing. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What are the advantages of changing the motion as opposed to just linking people to the footnote? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that footnote exists. I completely forgot about it, which says something about how hard it is to find because I wrote that footnote when I was a clerk. Anyway, I still prefer the explicit clarification in the motion but am happy to decline the amendment request. See below. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the interests of not having this sit for months, are people generally inclined to want to pass a motion, in which case it would make sense to put effort towards finding one that has support, or are people inclined to want to close this request in some other way (my preference)? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it would actually have the desired affect, but I don't really see a downside either, so my feeling at this time is to support this change. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Beeblebrox. I share his skepticism—might it make sense to have a tweaked notice specifically for RMs and similar discussions? I can quite easily imagine a newer editor skimming the notice and assuming it only applies in article space. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not seen anything so far to change my mind from the last discussion. Why should non-EC editors be allowed to discuss everything but the title of the article? That makes no sense. I can agree with clearly internal discussions as currently worded but move discussions are clearly content discussions and should imho be governed by the same rules as any other editing of the article. Regards So  Why  18:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like re-litigating the 2019 amendment is a different discussion than the one we're having. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2019 amendment explicitly has an exception that allows non-EC editors to "use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area". I just think that comments and edit requests related to articles includes the title of the article because the exception does not talk about "the body of the article" or anything like that. So it's not a question of re-litigating but of interpreting that amendment. My interpretation is that unless this has explicitly been excluded (which it hasn't), article names are part of the exception that non-EC editors have. The request here is to add requested move discussions to the remedy, which would imho constitute a change and not just a clarification. Regards So  Why  19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, why should non-EC editors be able to comment in RMs but not RfCs? Do we have any idea whether the arbs at the time considered RMs to be part of the "etc."? --BDD (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still leaning towards opposition, but I do have a question: why are we even debating this? The motion below reads as more of a clarification (which seems unnecessary and potentially convoluted) instead of any sort of "overturning" or "rewriting" of the existing language, but if the last time this was looked at RMs were considered "internal processes" and thus included in the exceptions (to the exceptions) we're just wasting our time.Primefac (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4



 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to oppose#1: The permission to edit talk pages is an exception to a general rule prohibiting editing anything related to PIA (content or non-content). That's why it's given as one of the "sole exceptions". As currently written, if you really read "content" as "mainspace content", then non-EC editors already have permission to edit talk pages, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc., even without the exception, because they're only prohibited from editing mainspace content. That's clearly not the intent, and that's why the first bullet point is a useful change and in line with how we already apply this remedy. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't really understand the opposes. However we sort out the details, the remedy amounts to a general rule plus some enumerated exceptions. The only substantial change is clarifying that RMs are not among the exceptions—and arguably, that's not a substantial change, given the December 2019 ARCA. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely to come up, but clerks, please consider this my second choice now. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. So changing it from "editing content" to "editing" is kind of misleading. As for the second change, I have already indicated that I do not think adding requested move discussions to be a clarification but a change of the nature of the remedy and I do oppose it. Closing editors might take into account that an account is not-EC when judging the outcome of a RM discussion but like all other discussions of an article's content, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing these editors to make constructive comments in such a discussion. The third change is okay but imho not necessary. Regards So  Why  10:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I generally agree with SoWhy, particularly on the first point. I'm not entirely convinced of the logic behind banning non-ECP users from the articles but not the talkpages, but that perhaps may be a discussion for another time.   Maxim (talk)  13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I find myself in opposition to this motion mostly because it would set up a contradictory set of instructions. The first part of 5.b.1 is Editors who are not eligible ... may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. (emphasis added). Later it is clarified that This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..., which to me means anything not on the talk page (e.g. WP-space, primarily). An RM is a form of edit request (though one that requires consensus) that falls within the first part of 5.b.1 and not in the second. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Shifted to abstain. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a silly technicality. "Internal project discussions" already means RMs. Wikipedia generally avoids the sort of enumerated lists because as we all know, lists are inherently incomplete. Thus we write a general principle. With regards to removing "content", it just feels like semantics to me. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain
 * 1) I'm not sure where I fall on this one any more, following more discussion and points. If the only clarification is to codify specifically that RMs are internal project matters, which was clearly already defined (but hidden in a ref, etc) then it should be a trivial matter to move "and move requests" out of the ref (i.e. the second bullet point being proposed) and really not even need a motion this complex. I'm also finding issue with points 1 and 3, but I cannot figure out exactly what it is at the moment that is bugging me so I will think on it a while and abstain in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I intend to propose the above motion if there are no concerns about the wording. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Per my previous comments on this topic, can we also change the word "content" in paragraph B to "pages"? – bradv  🍁  19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How about we make these changes? "All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict." and "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." The term "related content" is defined in Remedy 4 as including "all namespaces with the exception of userspace", but "content" itself is not. (sigh) Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made this change to the draft motion. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now proposed the motion for voting. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * especially, but also a general comment: I think the "contradictory set of instructions" ship has sailed. RfCs are explicitly not an exception—so is an RfC on the talk page a trap for non-EC editors? I'd much prefer straightforward guidelines. Maybe that means something like declaring all talk page discussions fair game. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we were to clarify anything, I think it should be RfCs not on a specific Talk: page are verboten, because as stated my interpretation of "other internal project discussions" means pages not in that namespace. Whether intentional or not, we shouldn't have rules so complex that on a single page discussion okay but  is not. Primefac (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The original motion is too confusing, and this amendment probably doesn't do enough to fix it. The undefined terms such as "content" are problematic, as is the nested exception in paragraph B. If we can agree on what it was trying to say in the first place, perhaps we can find a better way to phrase it. – bradv  🍁  00:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A somewhat rambling clarification of my vote follows. We're really nitpicking here when I think we should examine the broader "why". The reason we don't allow non-ECP in internal project areas is because we tend to get new to moderately new accounts that are here to POV push and disrupt. We've all been in discussions where a handful of users can cause a great deal of disruption. Especially something like an RM is going to be controversial, and thus on the principle, RM's, as an internal project discussion, should be ECP only. I oppose the wording as written because I think it adds needless bureaucracy. I fear that the longer ArbCom exists, the more folks will want our rulings to read like laws, with increasingly long enumerations, jargon, legalese, and ultra-precise wording. I think that is not useful for the somewhat loosey-goosey style of Wikipedia, and saps energy and independence from our hardworking AE admins. So bottom line: RM's are internal project discussions, but we shouldn't need to have to say that. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4 (2)


Enacted - Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Trying a different tact here: I think we lack a consensus on whether RM's are in fact part of the 500/30 restrictions, so this is in the interest of seeing where we stand solely on RM's. Baby's first motion so go ahead and tweak it if necessary :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as status quo, as established in the July 2020 ARCA. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as first choice. This provides clarity without getting into side issues like the definition of "content". Thanks, Eek! --BDD (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) As I said last time - Requested Move is shorthand for "Request for Comment about a Move". This motion explicitly clarifies that, which I thought we'd already clarified. <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>) 08:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Worm That Turned makes a fair point.   Maxim (talk)  14:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Primefac (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per above. I still think the name of an article falls under "content", not "internal project related stuff". Regards  So  Why  16:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Discussion
 * Copyedited. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action
This amendment request is closed without action.
 * Support
 * 1) Proposing this in the interest of not letting this ARCA sit here for months. If the status quo (the July 2020 clarification not in the text of the remedy but listed in the index footnote) is acceptable, then let's close this. If not, and the current motion isn't good, I would recommend proposing a different motion. Clerks: this isn't a formal motion and shouldn't be formally "enacted" if it hits a majority; it's just here to signal if arbs support closing this. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Barkeep49 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)   Maxim (talk)  13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) So  Why  18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I appreciate the lighting of a fire under us here, but we really need to either codify the December 2019 ARCA or repeal (and possibly replace) it. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I think the remedy needs to be rewritten. The poorly-defined terminology together with the nested exceptions make it confusing. On the substance of this ARCA, we still don't agree on whether non-extended confirmed editors can participate in requested move discussions according to the existing wording. – bradv  🍁  23:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Unfortunately, we need to do something here. It keeps coming back. <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>) 08:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: COVID-19 (July 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shibbolethink at 01:48, 13 July 2021 (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

Statement by Shibbolethink
Does the ArbCom decision on COVID-19 affect Gain-of-function research? There has recently been an increase in talk page activity and some off-site canvassing about this article and how it relates to certain COVID-19 conspiracy theories (namely that the virus was generated using bioengineering in a laboratory (usually suggested to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It may soon become helpful to request application of these sanctions if SPAs show up or if the page becomes more disrupted, so I ask: Do the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions apply to this article? Thanks.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not 100% clear on who would be a relevant party to this clarification request, if anyone. I am happy to include or notify any other users as requested. I added a notification over at the talk page in question just to be safe. Thank you.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
I'd argue that the DS should definitely apply to at least part of the article, and probably to all of it. Since part of the page directly addresses COVID-19, any edits to those parts are certainly. My experience with partially-covered ARBPIA articles (seemingly referred to as related content as opposed to primary article) suggests that there is a template that could be adapted for COVID DS. That said, even parts of this article that don't explicitly mention COVID-19 may be edited by Wikipedians and interpreted by readers in the context of speculation about COVID-19 origins. The predominance of the talk page discussions mention COVID. Recent coverage of GoFR, even when primarily discussing pre-COVID history or post-COVID legislation or funding, inevitably frame the facts using the current pandemic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
Yes, of course Gain-of-function research is part of the speculation regarding Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. I'll watch the article for a while and may be able to help as an uninvolved administrator but am busy at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
At present, the interest in gain of function research --at least on WP-- is mostly because of the implications for the origin of COVID, bu the topic is much broader, and arguments about the appropriateness of this type of study were raised long before Covid. There could perfectly well (& in my opinion should)  be an article on the subject not specifically discussing Covid,  but giving a link to a breakout page where that possible example would be discussed. Applying DS here would discourage proper use of the page for the general topic.

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.

COVID-19: Clerk notes

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



COVID-19: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I would say that yes, since the DS is related to COVID-19 broadly construed and since there is a clear link between gain-of-function and COVID conspiracy theories, that article should be covered by the DS.<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>) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with WTT that gain of research definitely falls with-in the broadly construed element of this sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's becoming a Covid flashpoint that seems like evidence enough it's about COVID broadly construed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues. If the editing is related to COVID-19, the DS applies, even if the article itself is not mainly about COVID-19. Regards So  Why  07:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can conceive of editing related to gain-of-function research without any inherent connection to COVID, but I doubt we're seeing much of that these days. I see this as a flip side of the pseudohistory and pseudoscience issue above—they're not necessarily always overlapping, though in this case, they usually are. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, the direct connection to COVID puts this particular issue (again, as it relates to COVID) under the broad umbrella of the case. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with my fellow arbitrators. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: Pseudoscience (July 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 15:50, 12 July 2021 (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

Statement by Tgeorgescu
Are the sanctions from WP:ARBPS applicable to pseudohistory? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The generic dispute is how fundamentalist believers want to state their own view of the Bible and of the history of Christianity in the voice of Wikipedia, i.e. against rendering the views of mainstream Bible scholars, which fundamentalists consider them to be heretical. But it also covers nationalist pseudohistory (e.g. Dacianism). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
It should be considered that, more and more, the study of history, especially ancient history, is coming to be based on scientific data, and, as such, pseudohstory which directly contradicts that data or is not consistent with it should probably be considered to be pseudoscience as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
In general, subjects in the field of the humanities are not suitable for considerations as pseudoscience, and I have grave reservations against extending them even into the social sciences. . There may be some areas and topics in history that are essentially pure conspiracy theories and fringe, but in general we can deal with them without the need for the pseudoscience special treatment.

But one area of the humanities is totally inappropriate to be considered pseudoscience, ever, and that is religion. The nature of the evidence in this field sometimes does resemble convention historical thinking, but often does not. I personally have a very strong view that  proving truth by personal revelation is never valid, and neither is proving truth by reference to the statements in sacred texts. People active in these areas from some traditions often feel the exact opposite, and it is not for WP to try to decide on this. Within the two religions I know, Judaism and Christianity, arguments about this question has been active on for thousands of years now, and is most unlikely to be settled --at least unless the traditionalists should somehow be correct, and the Last Judgment should intervene. What WP should never be doing is deciding on the status of religious questions. If there are multiple views, they must be presented, but the wording of an article should never imply that any one particular version is Correct. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, of course, thought about this differently, and they had every right to.  DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (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.

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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



Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * My initial response to the question as posed is yes, they can be, but no, they are not always necessarily. It would depend on the claims. Scanning most of the topics listed at Pseudohistory, nothing necessarily stands out to me as 100% pseudoscience, but many could veer into that territory. "Aliens built the pyramids", no, but specifically "ancient astronauts traveled through space, and their technology can cure cancer", yes. "White people are responsible for all great historical achievements", no, but "Genetics prove that white people are superior", yes. Of course, if this is a jumping-off point to a specific dispute, I'm reserving judgment. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification. I agree that this would not be covered unless it veered more clearly into scientific topics. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the clarifying comment above, in this case, no. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think BDD summed up what I wanted to say quite nicely. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience but it's not a part of it. That said, if the same problems appear there, we can consider expanding ARBPS to it, possibly by motion. Regards So  Why  18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know we cover pseudo-science broadly, but the broad strokes in my head cover "anything that purports to be science, but cannot be proved through scientific method". Pseudohistory is different, it's closer to propaganda and conspiracy theory. Yes, they overlap, and there will be times where Pseudohistory can be covered in the Pseudoscience banner, but not generally. <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>) 12:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My thinking aligns with my colleagues above, particularly WTT. This particular instance would not fall under a discretionary sanctions that I can see. However, as BMK points out history does overlap with other fields and so it's possible that a different dispute may also be part of pseudoscience. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above, it can overlap but it's a rather narrow scope for that particular Venn diagram, and in this particular instance seems to be outwith the "science" part. Primefac (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpret the pseudoscience DS authorization similarly to our article on pseudoscience. In particular, for a statement or belief to be covered by the pseudoscience DS authorization, both of the following be true: (a) the statement or belief purports to be scientific and factual, and (b) there is a reasonable argument (based on reliable sources) that the statement or belief is incompatible with the scientific method. Other disputed beliefs (such as those that don't claim to be grounded in the empirical methods) are not covered. If the dispute in question qualifies under this standard, then it is covered by the DS authorization; if not, as I suspect, then I concur with my colleagues that the DS authorization does not apply. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland (September 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Wugapodes at 02:21, 4 August 2021 (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


 * diff of notification Ymblanter
 * diff of notification Volunteer Marek
 * diff of notification GizzyCatBella

Statement by Wugapodes
The 30/500 remedy of the antisemitism in Poland case is unclear on whether it applies to namespaces beyond (Article). The decision states that non-EC editors are prohibited from editing articles and further states that non-EC editors may use the Talk: namespace to discuss improvements. However, this differs from the other 30/500 scheme imposed by ARBPIA. In that topic area, editors are prohibited from editing content and editing talk pages is listed as an explicit exception to the general prohibition in all namespaces. This inconsistency between the two has led to confusion among administrators and editors. The Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella reverted a non-EC editor who was editing antisemitism in Poland content in project space. The editors stated that those reverts were not edit warring as they enforced the 30/500 restriction which they believe applied to all namespaces. Ymblanter blocked them both on the basis of the remedy text, believing that the 30/500 remedy applied only to mainspace. Clarification on this point would help avoid future miscommunications and conflict. 02:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My personal position is that, if we are going to proliferate the use of 30/500 remedies, then it is best for everyone that they be standardized rather than bespoke. I don't particularly care what that standard is, but my opinion is that it is best to go with the most commonly used and recognized standard which is probably the Israel-Palestine 30/500 scheme. 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're going to go down the standardization route, I want to second CaptainEek's suggestion and suggest an "omnibus" of sorts. Create a subsection of Arbitration Committee/Procedures for "30/500 restrictions" modeled after the DS section. This can include the definitions Kevin mentions, the talk page exception, and the specific restriction text Barkeep drafted. Then amend all three cases using 30/500 restrictions to reference "standard 30/500 restrictions" as detailed in the procedures document. 18:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You define "Secondary" but I don't believe the motion uses it. You may want to change On pages with related content to something like On secondary pages with related content or change your defined term from "secondary" to "pages with related content". — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I did warn VM before blocking, and we had a discussion, it is just the discussion did not happen to be productive.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ok, but let us not claim that the warning has not been issued. I am sure VM would have said it themselves if this were not the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, I provided all the diffs at ANI, my last edit is here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by GizzyCatBella
- Unquestionably I would urge to include: due to enormous sock puppet activity in these sectors. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC) This is a great example since it just happens as we speak.. Brand new account, reactivated after 2 years of inactivity, shows up in support of the banned user's entry. Please note that this is a daily occurrence in this topic area. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC) And of course, there is a correlation in other articles between the short-lived account and the banned user but who has the energy to file an SPI report every day? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

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

(Collapsed outdated below)

- GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Statement by Zero0000
The current rules for ARBPIA are working pretty well, so replicating them here would be a safe and effective option. Zerotalk 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

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

To BK's point about a full case: I didn't participate in PIA4 because I had lost confidence in that committee (which was very understaffed at that point) especially in the wake of how the committee had handled the Antisemitism in Poland case, with which I disagreed (very loudly). I have always thought, and continue to think, that a full case is needed to look at the issues in the Holocaust-related topic area. But I also feel I've presented evidence about this to previous committees. The evidence I'd present if there were a full case would be similar to the evidence I've presented in the past (but more recent, with slightly different parties). If that's not the kind of evidence that the committee thinks is relevant then I'd sit out a full case. But if the committee would have a case and wants evidence, I'd present it. I just remember spending many hours last time gathering diffs and such and then I couldn't even get most of the arbs at the time to even comment on the evidence or even address entire issues (or certain parties' conduct). I don't want to waste my time or the committee's time putting together evidence that no one wants to read or thinks matters. I'd be looking for guidance from the committee about what kind of evidence and how it's presented. In the past, arbcoms have been reluctant to provide that guidance, and that's fine, I just wanted to share how I personally felt about participating in a new case. Fundamentally I do think there are editors who need to be tbanned and the community cannot resolve it--it's failed for over a decade--but previous arbcoms have also failed and I'm just not sure if this panel feels like it could be more effective than previous panels. No offense meant by this of course, the panel are all volunteers and what we have now may simply be the best that can be reasonably accomplished by the systems we have in place. I'd just hate to waste everyone's time: in order for a case to be productive, arbcom would really have to have the ability to digest a case that is going to be much larger than normal. Way worse than Kurds or Iran or Rexx in terms of both volume and temperature IMO. It sort of requires a certain level of seriousness of problem in order to justify the work this would present for arbs, for this topic more than most. I think that level is met here and am willing to donate my time to it but I'm not sure how many other people feel similarly (both on and off the committee) and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to sign up for this. Levivich 20:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth's big-picture description of what's going on in the topic area matches my own impressions exactly. Levivich 23:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision. It wasn't just my section either; there's an insane amount of diffs and commentary on that page. Looking at that again reminds me how much I don't want to do that again and why I don't edit in the topic area anymore. Levivich 03:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Piotrus
On one hand I am hesitant to deny 'free speech' to anyone, on the other I can confirm that Icewhiz's associated LTAs have been active in some non-article spaces. This started already in 2019 with Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death (an AFD of a rant written by Icewhiz; just look at it - almost all 'votes' are crossed out, socks everywhere). This pattern continues in AfDs, RfCs and like in this TA - above normal numbers of SPAs, IPs, and like are a norm. However, per my 'free speech' concerns, I'd suggest not removing them, but instead, votes by such accounts should be clearly labeled in some fashion. Maybe revise the cited remedy to note that votes and comments by such editors in this topic area should be considered as having less weight than those of normal editors, and encourage usage of templates such as Single-purpose account. csp, csm, Afdnewuser and like. Could also consider creating a new template to be used in this topic area instead of the new linked, linking to the revised remedy. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, where's that previous evidence you collected that you claim got ignored? I don't see anything at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence by you? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your streamlined proposal is good but thinking about WP:BITE and new content, perhaps an encouragement that when admins are exercising judgement about new articles (delete or not), there is option 3, draftifying, which is preferable to outright deletion, might be helpful? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
Since the WP:GS page has been brought up a few times now at ANI and in SoWhy's comment: that text was only meant to be descriptive of what ArbCom's general remedies are. It was taken from the ARBPIA remedy, I believe. You can parse it for this context by taking "articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism" to be the "given area of conflict". Otherwise, that text has no enforcement basis at all. There are three 500/30s authorised here: There exists no authorisation that uses the informational text at WP:GS. (I proposed removing it last year to avoid confusion but that didn't gain consensus.)
 * In Israel-Palestine, with this definition
 * In Antisemitism in Poland, with this definition
 * For conflicts between India and Pakistan, with this definition

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

I do believe VM thought in good faith it applied to the given page, given that all other remedies are across all namespaces, and a plausible explanation is that ArbCom made the common error of using "articles" and "pages" as synonyms. It's very much possible the distinction wasn't even noticed on a first read - I certainly didn't notice it on my first read, but then again I just skimmed over it as I presumed it was identical to the boilerplate text elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * PIA4 is short for Palestine-Israel articles 4 (the case: WP:ARBPIA4). APL is Antisemitism in PoLand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple concerns with the proposed motion. Firstly there's the issue of defined terms that L235 pointed out. Secondly, I think it's not really possible or ideal to get the exact text in sync with PIA4, since that case was uniquely curated for that topic area, and introduced (for example) the concept of primary and related content. That kind of restriction is complicated enough by itself and I think it would be better if it weren't proliferated too much. Alternatively, it could just be worded more simply here. If the goal is to keep text in sync, then it's better to move the definition of 500/30 to a separate page (like WP:ACDS) is, perhaps a page for 'standardised ArbCom general sanctions other than DS', and have the actual remedy in the case just be a one-sentence authorisation. These ideas are probably better to look into during your ongoing sanctions reforms, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A better way of wording it might be something like:


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

Statement by RGloucester

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


 * Please read my above comments. There are no 'ECP DS'. 500/30 is not a DS, it is a general sanction. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Great proposal. I do suggest replacing the '500/30 rule' terminology with 'ECP rule' per the other comments here. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In the interest of standardisation, you might consider taking over the community 500/30 rule for India/Pakistan articles (WP:GS/IPAK), replacing it with this new 'extended confirmed restriction', and incorporating it into the existing India-Pakistan sanctions regime. This will go a long way towards cutting red tape, and I doubt anyone in the community would be opposed. If anything, the elimination of all of these overlapping sanctions regimes would be greatly appreciated, I reckon. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

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


 * I second what Ealdgyth said about "Icewhiz remnants". I got this exact impression earlier this week. It's like the TA is being purged. François Robere (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In the very least you would want to review the circumstances around Ymblanter's action beyond what was focused on in the ANI discussion (option 1: limited block review) . Were there "edit warring", "disruptive editing, tag-teaming [and] reverts" (Ymblanter's block comments)? The edits and Ymblanter's action weren't done in a vacuum. I would add to that a COI review, since the removed entry had direct and indirect relevance to the TA and some of its editors, respectively; and a review of the post-block discussions, to understand how they deteriorated from a simple policy question to a someone worrying for their lives. All of these questions have TA-wide repercussions - in other words, this case isn't unique - but it does give you a microcosm through which to view the TA at large.


 * If you wish to dig deeper and start a full case (option 2: complete TA audit), bear in mind you'd have to gain the community's trust. There's a deep mistrust among involved editors of ArbCom's ability to deal with the TA, owing to its history of inaction; I've heard and said as much before APL, and after APL those impressions grew stronger. If you're to start a full case, a whole bunch of editors need to be convinced that it'll be meaningful; you should be ready to answer any and all of the following questions: is the TA reflective of the overall state of the research, or is it biased in some direction? Are some editors more prone to POV-pushing and tendentious editing than others? To what extent do editors tag-team and coordinate their actions on- and off-wiki? Is the culture of discussion within the TA conducive to building an encyclopedia? Are some editors more likely to "poison the atmosphere" than others? You should be ready to long-term-ban multiple editors, if the findings justify it; no one would accept an "easy" solution like APL had.


 * I would also suggest several procedural changes to make the proceedings more convenient, effective, and likely to draw a range of editors who would otherwise not participate. If you wish, I can explain on your, or ArbCom's TP. François Robere (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (Updated 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC))


 * I appreciate the disclosure. If a full case is what's needed to review this block, then I'd support it; it is, as I said, a microcosm of the TA, and I think it could be at effective enough, at least for a while. I still make a distinction between that and a complete TA audit, which is a much bigger undertaking. I've added a couple of annotations above to clarify what I mean by each.
 * I'll post on your TP tomorrow with some ideas. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies. :-) François Robere (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of acronyms - WPO? François Robere (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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


 * As a polemic aside, there's an irony that Icewhiz would probably get a medal from the Polish state for all the work he has done to tarnish his side of the dispute. Haaretz, if you read this, your paywall'ing can suck it (really, in the English version, too?). You can learn a thing or two (or three) from Davar. Israel's Paper of record, everybody. Too snobby for ads, that's just lovely. El_C 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , it's cool. Last night was reading Ephraim Kishon's sketch that roughly translates to "You Da Man!" (from the 1959 Sketches) and was thinking: 'hey, that's kinda my life.' El_C 12:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , comments at WPO don't exist in a vacuum. While I appreciate and commend you for the kindness you've shown Ymblanter there (whom as you say "may be reading this"), at the same breath, calling François Robere Icewhiz 2.0, that's out of line. Pouring more gasoline on the flames, I don't like that. And it ultimately helps no one, yourself included. El_C 04:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , you know, the place, with the thing. It's like UTRS, but with memes. And with Ming (who is awesome!)., thanks, appreciate the redaction. And the COD gunners rejoiced. El_C 11:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Capt. Pronin, legend has it that one day a chosen one will come who'd be able to explain the difference between General and Discretionary sanctions. And there will be much rejoicing. El_C 11:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by jc37
This is just about the 500/30 rule

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


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

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

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


 * User:Barkeep49 - It's not like 500/30 is set in stone, which is basically what you are about to do. Though I agree that extended protection could do with an rfc concerning this and other usages. Or does arbcom reserve the right to set / keep those arbitrarily (npi) chosen numbers too? - jc37 20:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * (the above has the intended tone of a question - I just re-read and the tone looks a bit snarkier than intended - my apologies). - jc37 20:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Barkeep49 - I have a suggestion then. If this ruling is supposed to mach the extended protection tool. then how about if it is written that way, and remove all text that states "500" or "30". That way the criteria is set to be whatever criteria the community sets it to be (also known as helping make it futureproof).


 * Let's call this something like: "The standard rule for restricting pages to extended confirmed editors". (maybe "a topic area", instead of "pages"?) Or "The editing in areas of conflict rule" maybe?


 * "All editors are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict unless their account has been extended-confirmed. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, this rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the this rule are not considered edit warring....[etc.]"


 * There may be better ways to phrase this, but I hope you get the idea. - jc37 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * User:CaptainEek, how about using "ECR Rule" (or somesuch) instead of "500/30 Rule" ? - jc37 20:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ECR is available for use for this as well. - jc37 21:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

That just leaves one separate issue here - the wisdom of this 'tailored' rule that came into effect last year. I actually share the reservations held for implementing the rule at all. In spite of this, if one concludes that a rule is required, I don't understand how last year's rule is somehow helpful in alleviating the actual reservations. If the restrictions exist for the article space, why should the participation be allowed on project pages that are not in the talk space? AFAIK, new legitimate accounts will start out in the main space. Additionally, if we take care to remember why DS (a type of GS) was streamlined by AC in the first place, I think we can appreciate why a streamlined 500/30 rule (another type of GS) is more effective in resolving the underlying issues sought to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is at the heart of the "separate matter" I mentioned above. Piotrus asked you: "Please tell me - and the community - on which page or pages each of the two editors you blocked violated 3RR (or 1RR if applicable), and please link diffs to the warnings you claimed above to have given them" prior to the block. Your reply was "Let us to postpone this until after the Arbcom at least has decided whether they are going to have the full case or not." Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Comment by Thryduulf
The motion needs proof-reading - it includes "" but there is no paragraph marked "b)" (indeed, paragraphs are not individually identified in any way). Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the text of your omnibus motion has the same flaw as above - it references a non-existent "paragraph b)". Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Statement by Aquillion
Regarding the "why 500/30" question above, the reality is that these topic areas see a lot more focused, determined WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT behavior than ArbCom elections. Yes, ArbCom elections are in theory more momentous, but topic areas that run along the fault line of real-world disputes are often what draws the sort of editors who engage in WP:SOCK / WP:MEAT behavior and which causes them to keep doing it. That means that topic areas like Antisemitism in Poland or ARBPIA are more likely to see disruptive attempts to evade any restriction, necessitating the longer period to make it harder to work around. And on a philosophical level, editors have less need to edit in a disputed topic area than they do to have a voice in selecting ArbCom - if a new editor desperately wants to edit ARBPIA articles, we can just ask them to edit elsewhere for a bit first; whereas when we cut an editor out of the process of electing ArbCom, we've disenfranchised them and that's that. Forbidding intermittent new editors who never reach 500/30 from voting for ArbCom would be more of a loss than banning them from ARBPIA. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (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.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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



Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motion: 500/30 amendment



 * Support
 * 1) I think there are advantages to having our special enforcement actions be as consistent across topic areas as possible and there has been enough evidence presented here to suggest that something more than just articles is needed. This language replicates the current language in PIA. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion
 * Not sure where I stand on this but the motion will need a fair bit of editing – "primary articles" and "related content" are words defined in ARBPIA4 for that case specifically. Also, we've had a hard enough time with those words in ARBPIA4; let's consider using better terms. Bradv made the good point in the previous ARCA that "related content" as defined by ARBPIA4 includes non-content pages (including talk pages), so let's avoid doing that again. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I am completely open to the wording of this. I am strongly biased towards consistency between these two special enforcement actions wherever possible to reduce confusion. So if we don't like PIA's wording I would suggest we should fix it together rather than have the new and improved with this one and the old version in PIA. I think that regardless of whether we expand the scope (which I am also in favor of). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I firmly support that our ECP restrictions should be standardized. My suggestion though would be that we create a section or new page, whose wording applies to all areas with ECP DS. Therefore, a change need not be legislated in several venues at once, but instead at one central place. Perhaps as a section on WP:AC/DS, or a subpage of. For each individual case that needed ECP, we could then have a short and simple remedy along the lines of "The standard ECP DS are applied" CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically when we want to limit ECP like it happened here, it would be "Standard ECP apply but only to articles"? Regards So  Why  17:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , yeppers! That's the intended point of my motion below: we have a "Standard ECP", but could always tweak it case-by-case CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Motion: EC omnibus



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


 * Oppose


 * Abstain

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

EC omnibus (alternative)
Here's an alternative:

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

I'm still not a huge fan of this approach. We would be better off codifying how all of our topic-wide restrictions should be construed. This draft, however, doesn't introduce new terminology and I think is more clear than the current text. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I know this kinda got lost with all the other exciting things happening in ArbLand, but I support your version and think we could probably pass it. The only major change I would suggest is to change the name to "Extended confirmed rule", or something similar, since I don't think 500/30 really captures it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Above is a second draft of the motion. This may be an improvement on the status quo, but our procedures need to codify even more: (keep in mind I'm writing these kind of off the cuff) I don't want these other things to hold up improvements, but we should be conscious that we're not making other things worse when we try housekeeping motions like this. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) We need to codify better notice procedures, or at least best practices, for things that are not DS. Right now, violating topic-wide restrictions (e.g. 1RR) is blockable even if there is no notice and even if there is no reasonable expectation that anyone knew about it. In fact, there is no standard notice. We should carefully consider how to codify requirements and administrative best practices for topic-wide restrictions.
 * 2) We use terms really loosely and that can breed confusion and misunderstanding. For example, we use "content" to mean in different places "article content" and "page content", which can cause the same "page vs. article" confusion as we have before us here.
 * 3) probably even more to do
 * I would also be curious to poll arbs on whether to include a point "E. Administrators may, in their discretion, grant extended confirmed status to editors who do not otherwise meet the requirements." or some other statement along those lines. This could help infuse carefully-selected productive editors into ECP'd areas at admin discretion – as others point out, 500 edits is a lot for many content-focused editors, and is not a great measure of experience. This may also need community approval, but ArbCom is a major stakeholder on this as we currently mandate 500 edits and 30 days in the remedy (not just EC status). Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've just been around too long, but 500/30 really doesn't seem like a very high bar to me. Have we heard such requests from admins? --BDD (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty high bar for a lot of editors who don't do RCP or things like that that generate a lot of edits. But I don't feel strongly about it. Formally proposing the motion without that line now. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and proposed this at WP:A/R/M in accordance with the procedural requirement. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)