Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles (April 2022)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Shrike at 17:26, 15 March 2022 (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


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&type=revision&diff=1077308493&oldid=1077292824

Statement by Shrike
This regarding following from WP:PIA Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE I have removed as it not  article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen  with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/WP:ANI/WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen
 * The rule was made to block socking, IPs and new users have nothing to do there, except if case is filed against them, so such users that want to comment there are probably returning users the shouldn't comment for example the IP first edits is some internal wiki proposal that is a low chance that not experienced user will come there, anyhow, in the end, I want some consistency right now comment by non-ECP user was removed while comment by IP was restored --Shrike (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I must say I totally agree with Wugapodes also I doesn't put any additional strain on AE admins as with articles the removing of such comments is usually done by regular users Shrike (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bishonen But that what happens in article space almost every time non-ecp user make edit, user from other camp are removing it citing WP:ARBPIA. That the usual practice. Shrike (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Barkeep49 What about ANI/AN,for example at RSN in various RFCs the users are doing the clerking and removing non-ECP comments and I think personally its the best way per WP:NOTBURO if there are some dispute that can be always brought to uninvolved admin or at WP:AE Shrike (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
Please see. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
 * Adding: Arbcom "owns" AE but traditionally takes little interest in it. Not sure if anybody is interested in a trip down memory lane, but it was in fact me that agitated for disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from posting requests at AE, back in 2015, and me that added the wording about it to the pink template. You can see me pushing for it and nearly giving up in the face of lack of Arbcom interest, here, but in the end, they allowed it. Before 2015, it had been quite a problem, with disruptive requests repeatedly opened by socks and dynamic IPs, which wasted some admin time and also — a much bigger problem — forced the unfortunate targets of these usually bad-faith reports to repeatedly defend themselves. That was my focus at the time, and it seemed easier to get Arbcom to allow the smaller restriction, only against opening reports, while still welcoming everybody to post. If the current committee (which seems more interested! good!) wants to enlarge the restriction, I've no objection. But for myself, I agree with Worm's and Zero's comments that AE admins should have discretion here, since they run AE anyway.


 * As for Shrike's removal, it seems a bad idea to me that an editor who has already posted an opposite viewpoint, and has skin in the game, should remove an IP post (twice, yet). Even if it's the right action, it's the wrong user. If this ends with IPs and noobs being generally disallowed, perhaps something about involved users leaving them alone should still be part of it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC).


 * @: That's the usual practice in PIA? That's a bad thing. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC).

Statement by Zero
I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in.

However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zerotalk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zerotalk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here. Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then Oh good, a bunch of sophistry. This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved.  Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by AE regular, Dennis Brown
I've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
For the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (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: Clerk notes

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



Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't claim to be an expert on PIA remedies. However, my reading of the extended confirmed restriction which includes PIA says IPs cannot comment at AE. (emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with barkeep49's interpretation. But if this causes problems for AE I'm open to some kind of change. The status quo is that AE is an internal project discussion for ECR proposes. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with Barkeep49 and L235. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We've got a problem here though - because is also right that the big template at the top of the AE page is pretty clear that ALL users can comment. It's even juxtaposed with a statement that IP editors cannot file. In other words, we've got two conflicting guidelines. It's tempting to accept ECR, because that was more recently put in place, but I fall on the other side, that we should focus on AE. I don't want to make the process even more onerous for the admins who take the time to actually work in that area - they already have enough rules to remember, but saying they should monitor the topic that IPs are commenting on for a minor note about whether they can comment seems over the top. Secondly AE is an enforcement board, and therefore one of the areas that we sometimes historically except restrictions, per WP:BANEX, I'd like to push that way as a general principle. Finally, there is the wiki philosophy of doing the right thing, thinking about the outcomes, thinking about levels of disruption, thinking about net benefit - I trust our admins to monitor the board and will back them up on what they do, I'd rather they weren't hampered by the rules, when trying to do the right thing. WormTT(talk) 09:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zero0000's workflow makes sense to me. @Shrike I understand the purpose behind it, but blanket bans and removal without consideration doesn't sit well with me. WormTT(talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording at AE should be correct, no matter what we decide here. That said, extended confirmed areas, including this one, have often been plagued with new editors who are disruptive at AE, including filing retaliatory/battleground reports. ArbComs of days gone past did not land on the noticeboard wording by accident. I'm pretty reluctant to backtrack on that in topic areas admins have repeatedly told us are the hardest to patrol and which many will not work in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's what the AE admins want, I'm all for it. I'd like to defer to their discretion as a whole. WormTT(talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments on this topic. I believe I now sit at the same point as Wugapodes' final paragraph - that we should update the text as he suggests and that admins should have the discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. So, in a similar situation to this - Shrike could remove the comment, Bishonen could review and restore if she felt it was helpful. And we can all go back to getting on with other things. WormTT(talk</b>) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a slightly tangential stance and say that AE should not be open to all users; AE should be limited to those with an account. In addition, I think the EC restrictions should apply to AE reports in that area. My thinking is that AE is an internal project discussion where we want a high signal-to-noise ratio and robust record keeping.IPs will fall into two camps: newbies and drifters. Newbies should not be commenting at AE for the same reason we don't let them comment in EC areas. Not only are they often socks, the policy knowledge required to participate helpfully is usually beyond them; they wind up being more noise than signal and can quickly cross the line into disruptive. The other type of IP that would comment at AE are what I'm going to call "drifters"; long term editors who, for whatever reason, do not want to create an account and periodically "drift" from IP to IP without an obvious SerialIdentity. There's nothing wrong with this, and many of these editors are helpful in various parts of the encyclopedia, but the benefit of inviting them to comment at AE is low. It opens us up to all the problems of newbies and socks (noise) for the occasional helpful comment (signal). The nature of IP-based editors is that they lack a robust AuditTrail, and that makes it hard to monitor who is using AE and for what ends. There is also the community aspect: drifters choose not to register an account and join our community, and while that's fine, community administration should be left to the community (see RewardReputation). So while there is some benefit to allowing IP drifters to comment, the highly administrative, procedural, and controversial nature of AE makes IP editing in general a net negative.Now, with all that said, I think it makes it easier to understand why I think EC restrictions should apply at AE: there are only newbies with none of the benefits of IP drifters. The reason we would not want newbie IPs commenting at AE is the same reason we don't want newbie accounts editing PIA articles or discussions. They lower the signal-to-noise ratio when genuinely new and are usually socks when they are policy-adept. For the few clean starts or IPs-turned-account, they will be able to participate when they have a sufficient reputation (i.e. 30/500) which I think is a feature not a bug.So, all together, I would suggest the following text: All registered users are welcome to comment on requests not covered by extended confirmation requirements. I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bish that Shrike was the wrong person to clerk this at AE. Uninvolved administrators are already authorized to clerk that noticeboard and assuming current consensus holds, would continue to be authorized to do so around IP moving forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Shrike AE is not, by design, like any other noticeboard. The rules are different and so what it means to (to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of leaving it to the discretion of uninvolved admins. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Given the issues we've had with socks, including some that have been used to harrass other editors, in the topic areas under ECR and that AE has been one place that has been a source of conflict, I'm in favor of saying ECR applies to AE also. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a practical point that hasn't been publicly discussed where there are certain specific editors we do not want participating in the area (including AE), and ECR helps to remove incentive for those editors. I am inclined the same way as Barkeep, and to change the AE text accordingly to account for ECR topic areas. All users are welcome to comment on requests. to All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate ECR. or some such is closer to what I would recommend. Explicitly, I think this should not be at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles



 * Support
 * 1) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Abstain
 * Arbitrator comments
 * While I support the ideas involved here, I don't like setting a precedent that it takes an ArbCom motion to change the AE header. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not too worried about that. AE admins: feel free to keep updating that header like normal. This motion is just making a one-time change in accordance with the clarification in the first sentence of the motion. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine just updating the AE header if that's where we're all at. That hadn't happened yet so I assumed we were waiting on some kind of motion before doing so. Another option which doesn't require outright passing a motion to modify the AE header is to clarify the section of WP:ECR by modifying the text of A1 to read Internal project discussions include[...]noticeboard discussions (including arbitration enforcement). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would change the inserted part to . Listing one restriction like ECR seems to imply that no other restrictions are in effect, whereas in fact if you are e.g. topic banned you can't comment unless an exemption applies. Have also copyedited the motion slightly. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Amended to include your suggestions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the spirit of the motion, but I share Barkeep49's concern about setting a precedent that may come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Are there any objections to one of us just going and making this edit?  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   02:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of objection from other arbs (which in this instance I take as silent consent) and some sense that we don't want to start handling the AE header by motion, I have gone ahead and made the edit Cabayi proposed above as an individual administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the spirit of the motion, but I share Barkeep49's concern about setting a precedent that may come back to bite us in the ass in the future. Are there any objections to one of us just going and making this edit?  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   02:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of objection from other arbs (which in this instance I take as silent consent) and some sense that we don't want to start handling the AE header by motion, I have gone ahead and made the edit Cabayi proposed above as an individual administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Extended-confirmed restriction (draft)

 * Draft 1


 * Draft 2


 * Arbitrator comments
 * I know some arbitrators were planning on going the other way so I wanted to provide draft language for this. This would be a change from the status quo but I suppose I could be convinced. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If we go this route, I'd prefer the method in Draft 1 and limiting its scope to AE rather than internal discussions generally. I think Draft 2 could be a good idea if we had more to add to it, but at the moment creating a section on AE just to note an exception seems more confusing than clarifying. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Ryulong

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Mythdon at 04:52, 11 April 2022 (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 Mythdon
I have a question as to whether the restrictions listed here are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed here and here) has expired.

Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following this discussion. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was blocked indefinitely shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said here "To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)" (the topic ban listed here here had already been imposed by that time).

I was unblocked in 2012 and back in 2016, I appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN, which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed here?

Based on to run under the current restrictions and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that to run under the current restrictions meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here.

It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation?

— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Worm That Turned: I'm not sure what the policy was regarding discretionary sanctions back when this was originally imposed, but I've had different administrators give conflicting opinions about whether they thought the sanction(s) would remain in force after the probation expired.
 * One administrator here said he was sure he did not have the authority to impose sanctions longer than the duration of the probation (in response to my question asking him why he changed a revert ban from "indefinite" to "for the duration of Mythdon's conduct probation". While another administrator at the time (Yunshui) said they "still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period.". While the imposing administrator (Fritzpol, who's now retired) said "When your conduct probation is over, you can ask me for a review and I'll look into it.". While FayssalF's clarification here as well as the remedy here (that I mentioned earlier), doesn't specify whether the "current restrictions" included the discretionary sanction(s) or not.
 * It's conflicting clarification that I'd gotten between 2009 up until my 2012 unblock, even though the case itself doesn't mention whether the sanctions remain in force or not. But based on your clarification as well as the clarification I received over Discord (where I was advised by an arbitrator to bring my concerns here) and having read WP:ACDS, it sounds like the discussion here didn't actually revoke this topic ban and that this does remain in force under current policy.
 * Either way, if there's a motion along these lines, I'd be okay with just the topic ban portion being superseded (even if the interaction ban remains in force thereafter). The main concern for me (if applicable) is to have the consensus here reflected/shown on the case itself. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 02:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All of that answers that questions. Thanks. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Worm That Turned: Have noted the motion. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (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.

Ryulong: Clerk notes

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



Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I've spent a little time looking, and I don't believe the sanctions imposed by Fritzpoll (noted here) have been rescinded. Equally, this appears to have been largely settled in 2015 by motion, with no further issues - so I would happily support a motion to vacate those sanctions. I'd like to hear other thoughts before proposing one though. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and noting my response to the general question - yes, discretionary sanctions authorised by conduct probation remain in effect beyond the expiry of the probation. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with WTT's assessment of the situation. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Worm. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * going forward you would just be able to point anyone towards this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with Worm that the sanctions are still in effect. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted

 * Enacted - KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) I believe we can remove this DS from 13 years ago, especially as all the other items from the case are cleared away. Specifically leaving the IBan in place as I generally don't like lifting them without a specific reason and Mythdon has stated they have no problem with it remaining. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I think my first choice would have just been to archive this with the clarification above. But I'm willing to do this as a second choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) No longer needed to prevent disruption. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Primefac (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) No obvious issues since 2009 when the restrictions were put in place. --Izno (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)   Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Donald Albury 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Arbitrator comments

Clarification request: Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. (June 2022)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Ypatch at 03:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

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 Ypatch
(courtesy ping) sanctioned me with a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page. I think Vanamonde is a good admin, and I do take responsibility for my flaws as an editor: I could have tried harder to put myself in the other’s shoes, could have tried harder to debate from a more objective perspective instead of nickpicking fallacies or flaws from counter arguments. I have since taken time off from Iranian politics, and really don’t plan to get involved with debating with anyone again or editing on this topic. I would just like to, from time to time, be able to comment on some talk page discussions. I do know a lot about this subject, and think I could help clarify some points citing the literature I’m familiar with, etc. That is what this request is about.

Copied statement by Vanamonde93
Apologies: as RP said, I've been travelling, with infrequent internet and little time. I sanctioned Ypatch essentially for displaying a battleground attitude. Before granting an appeal I would want to see evidence that going forward they will be able to engage constructively with users they disagree with within this contentious area. I haven't the time to evaluate whether that's the case, and am happy to leave that to ARBCOM's discretion. I do apologize for not filing the right forms logging the sanction; I do recognize the need for it. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Sdrqaz
, appeals at AE and at AN have occurred. As I noted on my talk page in March, my reading of is that further consideration is only allowed here, at ARCA. A strict reading of the text seems to imply that Vanamonde93 is unable to lift the sanction even if they wished, given that it has moved beyond the first stage ("ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision"), and, for that matter, the second. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC); struck 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Barkeep49, I seem to have misread both Worm's intent and the arbitration policy. I've struck my last sentence, and reading his comment again, it seems like the rest of my statement (which was its thrust) was based on a misreading of intent: I thought that he was advocating for an on-the-merits appeal at AE when one had already occurred. I am reminded why keeping one's mouth shut in these things is, as usual, the best course of action. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2022 (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.

Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.: Clerk notes

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



Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * It has not even been three months since this sanction was levied, and the current convention is to wait at least six months before appealing indefinite topic bans; I am not seeing any compelling reason in the request to overrule or otherwise fast-track this. Primefac (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Primefac. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is our precedent about when a sanction has not been logged? Because that's the situation where in here - the sanction was clearly labeled as AE and the editor it applied to clearly understood it, but it wasn't put in the AELOG and I find the policy language confusing on the matter. My guess is that we just fix the missing log and proceed apace in this situation but want to ask that broader question first. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since both the admin and affected user clearly understood, I'm fine fixing the log and reminding the admin. I'd like to think WP:NOTBURO can apply even to DS enforcement. (If either were party were not clear, however, this would be more than a bureaucratic matter.) -- BDD (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah BDD I think you have this right. I have been holding off further comment awaiting comment from Vandamonde. It looks like they were never formally notified, and the ping from Maxim below might be the first they're hearing of it though also their activity has been light recently. I am leaving them a talk page notice as that might generate some attention a ping did not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been advised that Vanamonde is likely to be unable to reply to this and we should move forward without him. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the levying administrator does not lose their right to unilaterally modify a sanction after appeal to AE/AN. When there is an appeal to the committee like this, AE, AN, and the levying administrator may no longer change for six months (or longer if the committee decides) and those bodies may only loosen for "rope" uneasons (there can be no appeals on merits of the original sanction after a committee appeal except by the committee). You have to read the section you linked in conjunction with Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions in particular important note 2. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do want to note that Vanamonde93's original note did mention three months as a sort of cool-off period (for lack of a better term). In addition, as Ypatch's edits elsewhere seem productive and considerable, and the appeal is not bad, I'm willing to entertain this appeal, that is, not simply dismiss as too early.  I'm interested in any thoughts you may have on the appeal.   Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   19:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that admins have the discretion to make such calls and absent a good reason, we shouldn't be looking at it. I agree with above that review shouldn't happen in less than 6 months, and I'd rather it was considered at AE, or by the original admin, though I do accept ARCA is a option. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Jayron32 at 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

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


 * There are no involved parties, but this should be sufficient to notify anyone who was involved in the prior discussion.

Statement by Jayron32
There was a recent ANI case that centered around ambiguity of Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. After some acrimony, the case was solved sufficiently, so I am not naming any parties for this request for clarification, though any commentary from anyone involved with that discussion would be welcome. One of the tangential issues that came up related to some ambiguity of the DS awareness and alert system regarding the 12-month time limit, especially in regards to notifying users who are not active in the area-of-dispute they are being alerted for. The user in question had done some editing back in January in the area, but had not touched it in the intervening months, and was blindsided by a DS-alert template which confused and confounded them; this led to an argument over the placement of the template, some considerable WP:WIKILAWYERing, and some unnecessary name-calling. Eventually, things calmed down, but not until there had been a lot of drama. I feel like a lot of this could have been avoided if there were some better clarification on the appropriate use of DS-alert templates; specifically when is the use of the template authorized, and more importantly when not. I had mistakenly thought that there was some parameters on when it could be placed, but I can't find anything in the guidance; is it really intended that any user can be notified of, and placed under, DS-alert at any time, regardless of whether or not they are, or have ever been, actively editing in one of the DS-targeted areas? If not, what are the parameters of when it is appropriate to use such an alert? Which is to say, how recently should a person have been editing in the targeted area? The past week? Past month? Past year? Ever? Thanks for your attention to, and clarification of, this issue. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @nableezy: It actually isn't a non-event. The DS alert system makes it possible to place someone under the more restrictive sanctions authorized by the DS system; as such it is a form of sanction in itself, regardless of wording to the contrary, since if someone is not notified, they cannot be so sanctioned under DS. Telling someone they are being placed under increased scrutiny for their editing is not a neutral act.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @nableezy: And telling people that has the reasonable potential of raising emotions; as such, we need parameters to define when and when not it is appropriate to leave such notices. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zero0000: I agree wholeheartedly that if we had a bot system to do so, it would be much preferable. I also agree that people should not be overreacting to having the notice placed on their page, however they clearly do.  This is not a personal issue, it is a systems issue, which is to say that no one should be considered to be at fault here.  There is a system in place that has problems, and we need changes to the system to fix it.  I am not particularly concerned with assigning any blame in the precipitating event that led me to ask for this clarification; I have intentionally not named any party.  BOTH of the people involved acted in good faith, but emotions got high and that could have been avoided had the system we are using been better designed.  Bot notifications only, or contawise, clearer guidance on parameters for notifying editors, would help so that good faith editors are not encouraged into conflicts in the future.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers: re "Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert, and I've never seen anyone alert someone who hasn't been active at all in the prior year." I have no problem if that is the standard, but if so, the guidance at AC/DS would benefit from such a statement.  Without parameters, we have no idea what is and is not appropriate; disagreement due to such ambiguity is a locus for good faith disputes, which can be headed off if we have explicit guidance.  I am not particularly privy to other problems with the DS system, I only really started this discussion over a narrowly defined problem.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Barkeep49: Thank you for your lengthy explanation. Contrary to your statement that your response doesn't deal with my issue directly, I rather find that it does; while I was only asking for a tweak to the guidance offered at the DS system, a complete system overhaul may accomplish the same as part of its loftier goals.  Since there appears to be some drafting and discussions already in the works on doing so, maybe this recent situation will inform thoughtful implementation of the new system with the problems in mind.  Thanks again!  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
I would prefer that all editors be presumed aware if they meet a requirement (eg 500 edits + 30 days). Send out a notice to the talk page of such editors once they qualify explaining that. Then it is only necessary to deal with relatively new editors and they can be covered with the same notification sent manually (by anyone). Maybe this is too simplistic but the current system is dreadful. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
This is very basic, and yes a whole lot of unnecessary drama. The placing of an informational template, which explicitly disclaims any accusation of wrongdoing, is a non-event. A bot should do it, if you have edited in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions you should be informed of the sanctions, full stop. Calling that harassment, when it is one edit giving a required notification, is asinine and borders on gaslighting when coupled with actually harassing claims and insults. If a user has a history, any history, of activity that would merit a trip to AE, including edit-warring or personal attacks, they should be informed of the sanctions. So that if that occurs in the future it may be reported to AE rather than the circus of ANI. And if you do not want a notification, place the freaking awarness template on your talk page. You can do it in a hidden comment and it won't even display the banner. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes being aware means one can be taken to AE and not ANI and be subject to discretionary sanctions. It is still a non-event, the topic area as a whole is already covered by the sanctions. Ensuring that all participants are aware of those rules that already apply to them is not telling someone they are being placed under increased scrutiny for their editing, it is telling them that when they edit in a specific topic area their editing is already placed under increased scrutiny. It is informational, not threatening. That is why the alert says This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. It is specifically tailored to not be anything more than informing a user of sanctions that are already in effect. Yes, if you violate them at that point you may be reported to AE. Ok, and? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, Im fine with some clarity on if or when an alert should be placed, and I appreciate the way you brought this without blaming anybody, but I also dispute that "raised emotions" is anything close to a reasonable reaction to being informed of sanctions already in place. If you dont want the notification on your talk page, revert it. If you dont want to receive another one, place the awareness. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
With due respect to Jayron32, experienced editors are not "blindsided" by receiving DS-alerts. Whether clarifications to the rules are needed, I'm not sure. Perhaps bringing together the disparate bits into one statement would help. However, DS-alerts exist for a good reason and it must not be the case that delivering them is something a good faith editor only undertakes with trepidation. A objective system would be a bot that delivers an alert to any editor who edits a page with a DS template but hasn't received an alert in the past 12 months and doesn't have the DS-aware template. With that system, I will get one every year and that's just fine. Zerotalk 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Having thought about this a little more, I would add "and the relevant arbcom ruling has been changed since the last alert notice" to the criteria for a bot-delivered alert. I don't think that would be a good addition for human-delivered alerts though, as it is an unnecessary burden to check. Zerotalk 06:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
The deep background on this is that the DS awareness system is broken. Sending good vibes to whoever is currently working on the reforms. In the meantime, I don't think the timing issue at hand needs explicit clarification. Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert, and I've never seen anyone alert someone who hasn't been active at all in the prior year. I have a separate request for clarification related to the same dispute. WP:AWARE's criterion #2 says, but it's not clear whether a revoked sanction that fulfills the criterion or not. I doubt there are many sanctions removed without appeal, but there's been at least one, and confusion over the awareness status was a part of this dispute. Can we tweak the criterion to say ? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think Jayron32's point in response to me is a good one. Though I think clarification won't reduce out-of-process alerts, it might lead to quicker resolution of conduct disputes. I'm in favor of a change to the documentation at Template:Ds/alert along the lines of: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Jip Orlando
First of all, thank you to Jayron32 for bringing this here. I closed the ANI thread as the discussion had moved from being productive to having a strong heat>light ratio as an uninvolved editor. For some personal background, I had notified Levivich of a DS alert in 2020 regarding infoboxes here: as I honestly could not tell if he was aware of the drama that had plagued that topic area. He 'thank'ed me for the notification. The next day, an IP editor with no other few other edits posed a DS-aware template on my talk page:. I took no offense but I think it is reasonable to assume, based on my participation in the topic area that I was aware, even without the template. Maybe the template can be softened? It already says, as Nableezy says above, that wrongdoing is not assumed. I intentionally stay away from the hornets' nest that is AMPOL, IPA, PIA, and the other 'alphabet soup' sanction areas. The challenge lies in the wording that an editor must be notified of DS. And I get why- there is extensive precedent that an area has been problematic. These templates, as noted above, are good for new editors that may not be aware of problems. Most established editors who read the dramah areas will be aware without seeing a DS template with the draconian scales of justice on their talk page. Further clarification is necessary and possible investigation needed on the effectiveness of these templates. Maybe encouraging editors to place the DS-aware template on their talkpage to avoid the drama? The current system is impersonal and sometimes insulting, as seen in the ANI thread. Perhaps loosening the yearly awareness criterion and moving to a one-off? Talk page histories are rarely deleted and it is easy to find the diff of when a notification was sent. We could also have a bot do it, which removes the personal grudges and the HAHA, GOTCHA! nature of these notifications, especially when it comes from one established editor to another. In sum, my thoughts are: This is tricky and often a sore spot for editors. Thanks, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Change the wording of the DS templates to something softer.
 * Change the yearly awareness criterion to a one-time notification being sufficient.
 * Have a bot do it. I worry though, that this becomes a bit bureaucratic.  Notification for notification's sake without understanding the nuances involved.

Statement by Sideswipe9th
While the bot idea sounds promising in theory, in practice it is less so. Many of our discretionary sanctions pages are only considered so due to "broadly construed". While a human editor can make the determination as to whether or not a specific article is within the scope of one or more relevant sanctions, that isn't feasible for bot. In order for a bot to function, lists of articles would need to be created and maintained, one for each sanction area, with new articles added as they are created or at some point enter the scope of a sanction, and others being removed as they are deleted or leave the scope of a sanction. While an alternative to a public facing list might be for the bot to scan/read for a ds/talk notice on an article's talk page, not all articles that are within the scope of a sanction have been tagged as such. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill
Based on my experience at AE and in DS areas, I think that a one-time notification for a given DS, rather than a yearly notification, seems appropriate for any sanction regime that does not have a built-in sunset date and which has not been amended since the last notification. Now, as I type this, I recognize that cases where the regime has been amended since the last notification could present a thorny edge case, but it would at least have allowed us to dodge this instance of Nableezy v. Levivich. signed,Rosguill talk 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial
I support Rosgull's proposal for "perma-awareness" once an editor is AWARE of a particular DS area: this would seem to remove the major irritants of the current system, which in my view consist of (i) editors becoming annoyed at new templated reminders after a year has passed (although they are unwilling to template themselves as ds-aware, which would avoid this annoyance, for whatever reason), and (ii) editors evading sanctions thanks to expired awareness templates - the scenario that gives rise to the renewed notifications, which in turn gives rise to (i).

It seems to me that the one possible drawback of this proposal - that arising from changes to the scope of DS areas - could be substantially mitigated by some form of automagical notification when the scope of a sanction area changes. This might not be possible, as things stand, in the case of editors who are deemed to be aware, for example, due to their participation in AE discussion on a certain DS topic. That anomaly might be a reason to change the overall awareness procedure slightly, so that editors who are "deemed aware" have to receive the template on their user Talk after their awareness has been noted: they were already aware as of the date and time of their AE participation in the topic area, but the template is used as a marker so that the systems can detect its presence in the user Talk history and generate a notice of the change of the DS topic's scope, should that happen.

It seems to me that whatever small advantage there might actually be in "reminding" editors of DS areas annually is substantially outweighed by the irritants (i) and (ii) I noted above; the existence of the DS-aware template also already nullifies this supposed advantage for a non-trivial population of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan
Re "Activity in the topic area at least a few times during the preceding year seems a reasonable justification for posting an alert ..." I'd hope that would be a minimal justification since I've recently seen what appears to be an administrator's alert after a single climate-change comment on a talk page (I'll point to the discussion and ping the parties if someone thinks that's dubious). It would enhance if the third sentence was "You have shown interest in [topic] three or more times in the last twelve months." If it's false that doesn't invalidate the alert, but the recipient (per later in the DS/alert message) can query "What edits? Prove it", which makes it more trouble to issue alerts without prior research. The twelve-month expiry is good for the same reason. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl
User:Jayron32, as alluded to by Barkeep49, there has been a review of the discretionary sanctions procedures underway since 2021. I hope that the forthcoming proposal will include something like the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021_review/Consultation&diff=1014529646&oldid=1014524289 one-time alert] I suggested, explaining how discretionary sanctions work and telling the editor how to find out for themselves if a page is subject to discretionary sanctions. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
Not seeing a lot wrong with the situation. If you don't want warnings add the temlpate saying you are aware, if you don't want the template and want to edit controversial areas then getting a warning a year is not a major problem. It would be great if there was an automated way to send out these messages as it invariably ends up being someone who is at odds with the editor who places the notice and often this just inflames the situation. Having a bot do it would take away alot of the personilisation. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
Jayron - I saw this after I posted this response at ANI so it is now posted here. It also triggers a filter that states the user is already aware, and advises not to post another. The remedy for these issues has already been passed by ArbCom. Users simply have to take advantage of it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 14:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aquillion's comment below, re: new users not knowing about DS, or its complexities. Keep in mind that DS affected articles have notice/warning banners in edit view and on the article TP that are pretty hard to miss. If a new user ignores them, I doubt a UTP notice will have much of an effect. I support rewording the template to reflect a more welcoming, educational approach with a link to instructions about adding the perm awareness notice at the top of their UTP, (and allow it to be designed to fit their page as is DS Aware Notice) which triggers the filter showing all DS topic areas. But, notice or not, the subsequent treatment new users can probably expect if they're on the wrong side of WP's systemic bias can be even scarier, or at least discouraging – I've mentored a few. Unfortunately, baiting & bullying tactics tend to incite new users unfamiliar with community norms, and are effectively used to drive opposition from a topic area. While DS/AE makes the latter a tad easier to accomplish, ArbCom should consider focusing more on that behavior along with expressed concerns about WP:POV creep, POV pushers, and first user advantage. We don't always get the unbiased close we expect from an RfC, it happens, but even worse is when those on the wrong side of WP's systemic bias are subjected to disproportionate AE actions, more so when it's done unilaterally. The issues with DS-AE, especially those involving WP:POV creep, continue without an effective remedy, but I remain cautiously optimistic that the current ArbCom will indeed effect much needed improvements. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 12:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
The system of formal DS notices is really, really bad. It encourages hostility and presumptions of bad faith, making conflicts more rancorous rather than encouraging constructive editing. The core problem is that sending someone a formal DS notice is seen as (and, in fact, is) a hostile act. To a new editor, it is a big scary notice, no matter how carefully it says that it doesn't imply wrongdoing. Even to an editor who understands the underlying system, it is often a blunt statement that the person posting it believes that bringing the target to AE will eventually be necessary. Nor do they actually convey anything helpful - a new user will not know our default standards and therefore will have no context for how AE topic areas alter them; an experienced user should have at least a general sense that touchy areas are handled more strictly. And when taking someone to AE is necessary it sometimes leads to people who were obviously aware of what they were doing wrong and the high-scrutiny nature of the articles they were editing getting off on a technicality.

Nothing about it works the way it should. And it is totally, completely unnecessary - should editors get some degree of warning? Sure, but we manage WP:3RR (which generally requires some degree of warning or awareness) just fine without a formal system; administrators are very capable of judging for themselves whether someone was given adequate notice. The prerequisite to bringing anyone anywhere, including AE, is to make some effort to talk it out first; the templates are not a substitute for that. The requirement should be removed, and the relevant templates should be deleted and salted against recreation. They're terrible things that are causing serious damage to no benefit whatsoever.

Regarding the suggestion above that people can opt-out of the templates - that is no use at all to new users (for whom a scary template, usually delivered by someone they are in the middle of a hot dispute with, is going to be the most harmful.) And it does not answer the underlying problem that the templates serve no useful purpose; we manage just fine without such a formal system everywhere else. They were devised years ago when AE was a rare exception, by experienced editors who didn't want to trip over this new set of rules. None of that applies anymore - AE is a longestanding well-established part of our existing rules and should be treated the same way, not with these hostile WP:BITE-y messages. --Aquillion (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
I'm briefly commenting here because Barkeep49 mentioned me below.

The discretionary sanctions system started to evolve the year before I first joined ArbCom (2008). As noted, I pointed out many times then and thereafter that because topic-areas under DS were subject to different rules from other topic-areas, and some pages in those topic-areas were subject to more specific rules still, it would be unfair to sanction editors for violating rules that they were unaware of. In other words, if an editor was reported to AE or otherwise chided about a DS violation, and credibly responded along the lines of "I never heard of the rule you're telling me I just violated," the proper response would be educational, at most a warning rather than a block&mdash;especially where the challenged edits would have been permissible if made in non-DS areas.

"If there's doubt about awareness, warn first" was intended as a principle of fairness rooted in common sense. It has now, however, morphed into what an arbitrator once called "our body of 'awareness law'", and the complexity of the rule-set has long since reached the point of self-parody. The whole superstructure should probably be done away with, and replaced with the simpler original principle that if an editor credibly claims for the first time that he or she was unaware of a given restriction, the appropriate initial response is a notification rather than a sanction. This should cause few problems, because after being advised, the editor will necessary either (1) violate the DS rules again, in which case action could then be taken, or (2) not violate the DS rules again, in which case the problem is solved.

The overcomplexity of the DS regime is an example of a broader Wikipedia/Wikimedia-wide problem. That problem is well-discussed in this article from a few years ago. As it happens, the article was written by a current member of the WMF Board of Trustees, which as was recently discussed on a mailing list, is suffering from some governance-process hypertrophy of its own&mdash;thereby helping to illustrate how pervasive and intractable this movement-wide type of dysfunction seems to be.

On the specifics of DS awareness, I am sure I am overlooking some fine points: I have admittedly become somewhat jaded after participating in these discussions for 15 years. My ex-colleagues and successors have my best wishes for cleaning up the mess, one which I'm sure I played some part in helping to create. In the meantime, the system should be administered with as much common sense as English Wikipedia is capable of ... which I realize, in my old wiki-age, is not always as much as it ought to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Tewdar
The article you just edited is in a controversial topic area, and I didn't think much of your contributions, so I'm leaving this templated message on your talk page so that I can get you banned if you do it again. All the best!  Tewdar  09:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
Discretionary sanctions are not enforced uniformly, so naturally there will also be a sense of unfairness or injustice regardless if it's a notice given or an enforcement request result. In many cases of placing a notice, it's because an editor saw another editor made an edit they didn't like. The system needs a major overhaul.

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts: Clerk notes

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



Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I have thoughts and admittedly they're going to address what I think should be rather than strictly what is now because I think we need to be making changes here. The next person familiar with awareness (even at a cursory level) who thinks our current rules are working will be the first I know of. Beyond that, this appeal also deals with the reality that our alert templates don't feel good to receive, regardless of what may be the bolded text may say. In the DS reform that and I drafted last year we attempted to deal with both of these issues.For AWARENESS, what I believe should happen is that the current AWARENESS criteria be replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert in a topic area. Often what's happening with DS is that the rules being broken are not special rules of DS but broader Wikipedia rules that are being enforced more rigorously (both in what it takes for there to be a sanction and how stringent the sanction is). So it's fair, as  has eloquently pointed out on more than one occasion, to make sure editors know this system exists before they're subjected to it. But if we're saying some version of "DS are Wikipedia rules, just more so", and I believe we should be saying that, I also don't think we need to twist ourselves into knots about a person being aware beforehand. They shouldn't have been doing what they were doing in the first place before getting a DS sanction. There's a reason that things like 1RR are expected to be accompanied by things like page notices but also editors shouldn't be edit warring and having a different brightline (1 vs 3) doesn't change that core expectation, to pick one example. By explicitly noting that lack of AWARENESS is appealable we also provide a safeguard. This is especially true because I support lowering the level of consensus required for a successful appeal from "clear and substantial consensus" to "clear consensus" and in providing clear standards of review for appeals.If we're going to presume AWARENESS we do need to make sure that the alerts we're giving work. So I believe there should be new template language, including standardized section headers and that only an UNINVOLVED editor or administrator may place an alert. There is a tension between scaring off editors and getting them pay attention to a template. I believe the name DS itself should change to be more informative and hopefully less scary and confusing. To further help, I believe we should use a two-template solution. A template the editor gets when they first start editing DS (in any topic), and get their first alert, should be an introduction which truly explains DS. It should have pre-designated section headings rather than whatever name an particular editor decides. They would then get a shorter alert when they first start editing other DS areas reminding them that DS exists and that this new area is also covered by the DS rules. Beyond that there should be some recognition that the alert is always going to feel somewhat like a rebuke, hence the change to only allow subsequent alerts to be placed by an UNINVOLVED editor and by providing a place that editors getting an alert may ask questions of 3rd parties instead of just the person who placed the template.There are a lot more details that go with all this and some more explanations that go with all this. I hope that the current DS drafters, L235, Captain Eek, and Wugapodes, will choose to bring forward something close to what I've outlined above as I think it's responsive to what we heard from a number of editors during our DS consultation. I will again acknowledge that I don't really address what Jayron is asking here because I think providing those answers for a system that needs change is less productive than just doing the changes that should happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We do need to acknowledge that Wikipedia of 2008 when DS was introduced was a different world to today, and has gone through a lot of evolution over that period. I think that the principle that someone should not be sanctioned for something they credibly didn't realise was wrong is a good one, and should be brought forward. However, I do agree that the monolith of DS AWARENESS is overkill in its bureaucracy and complexity. We're in the process of DS reform, and I hope that this will be taken into account. However, I'm not sure that anything needs to be done here, and now, more than letting this ARCA help influence the ongoing reform. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with the views of my two colleagues above. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your thoughts. I think this can be closed pending the broader reform, and will ask the clerks to do so unless another arb objects. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Tea Party movement

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Mhawk10 at 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement


 * 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/Tea_Party_movement
 * My request is that a motion be made to strike the clause.

Statement by Mhawk10
The current clause states should any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision violate the terms of the sanction, then further sanctions may be imposed as appropriate pursuant to the discretionary sanction remedy. There do not appear to be any active discretionary sanctions in this area based upon the arbitration enforcement logs (2013, 2014, 2015). Since the discretionary sanctions have been superseded by WP:AP2, and decision sanctions are distinguished from discretionary sanctions by the text of the case, this is a zombie clause that's still in force but can never be used. A motion to strike this zombie clause would help to complete the clean-up from when this got merged with AP2. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2022 (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.

Tea Party movement: Clerk notes

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



Tea Party movement: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If some arb wants to draft it I'll support it, but I also don't think any change is needed. Enforcement is now done through AP2 and the Tea Party DS were superseded into that. As such there is no Tea Party DS to be enforced and so the enforcement language is moot. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with Barkeep49; the motion to accept AP2 included a focus "on a broad topic and will examine allegations ... [including] the Tea Party Movement topic", and the Tea Party DS is not listed in the DS awareness codes. It might not have been formally superseded by Remedy in the case or an ARCA motion -- and if the motion to open the case had not specifically included the Tea Party I might be more in agreement -- but it seems fairly clear that any Tea Party-related sanctions are part of AP2 DS now. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * While I am generally in favor of removing old or outdated sanctions, removing this one doesn't really change anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I thought we had already closed this one. I don't think any action is needed. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Barkeep49 at 19:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan


 * 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/Kurds_and_Kurdistan
 * Repeal of topic ban

Statement by Thepharoah17
I got a one year topic ban in this area and would like to appeal the ban. Apparently, my editing was disruptive and I pledge to change that. I never meant any harm with my edits. In any case, I just took a seven month break from Wikipedia and am ready to contribute positively. I was kind of busy in the past few months. If you let me back, I promise I will contribute positively. There was a sockpuppet that I was dealing with and things may have gotten a bit messy but I promise there will be no disruption from me. You can look at my talk page history and see that I have never been disruptive. By the way, I am not sure if I am appealing this the right way or if I have to appeal to the arbitration committee i.e. I did not know what to put for 'user imposing the sanction' so I just put ArbCom. The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt (and did not even get one of the diffs correct). Go through my talk page history and you will find almost no warnings. You want to extend the topic ban, go ahead. I fully swear 100% to god that I have NEVER been disruptive. That case was opened by a banned user. That one month block btw, I’m not sure what it was for i.e. I think it was supposed to be an arbitration block but it was because a user went forum shopping. I am telling you I am 100% innocent. The block on the French wiki was because I was reverting a sockpuppet's edits on that wiki. I am telling you, though, I am 100% innocent. If you do not believe me, that is your choice. The topic ban is not even possible. Banned users cannot open arb cases. Do whatever you want. Honestly, I don’t even know why I even came back. The whole thing is just weird but again do whatever you want. Banned users cannot open arb cases and users like Levivich cannot do (or are not supposed to be allowed to do witch hunts). Before that point, I had NEVER really had any warnings. He did a witch hunt and portrayed me as a disruptive editor. I am telling you, though, I am not a disruptive editor. Believe whoever you want. It is your choice. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm really just a poor guy who was hoping to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. If you believe I am disruptive, then I don't know what to tell you. BTW the only reason I was topic banned was because I reverted a sockpuppet. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
Two things I'd like to raise: First, the last edit Thepharoah17 made prior to posting this request is this from Dec. 6, which I won't characterize, but I think reviewing admins should read. Second, I think it would help to see a few examples from the past year where Thepharoah17 has resolved a content dispute with another editor, or at least engaged in discussion of content with another editor, to demonstrate that their approach has indeed changed from the approach that led to the TBAN. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 18:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For convenience of those reviewing this and the next appeal, and maybe for Pharoah's benefit, let me quote WP:KURDS:
 * Since then, we've seen the same behavior on the French Wikipedia (where he was blocked for erasing Kurdish names in favor of Arabic ones), in the Dec. 6 posting linked above ("I really do not care about all about Kurdistan nor do I really know anything about it" yet here he is seeking to edit the topic area again), and in this AE appeal (sidetracking concerns about their article-writing: "The only reason I am topic banned is because there was a sockpuppet and because Levivich did a witch hunt..."). Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 19:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Statements by uninvolved Administrators when posted at Arbitration Enforcement

 * The topic ban was placed in February 2021 with a note that it can be appealed after 12 months. They were blocked for a week by El_C for violating the topic ban in March 2021 which they unsuccessfully appealed here. They were block again in May 2021, this time for 1 month, following this AE thread. This clearly shows the claim that they have never been disruptive to be incorrect. Looking at their talk page, it seems there have been several issues relating to deletion since then but none have been in the area of the topic ban. However, this appeal is their first (and so far only) contribution to the project since December when they were indefinitely blocked on the French Wikipedia for Kurdistan-related disruption. All this together, and particularly the last two points, mean I'm leaning towards not accepting the appeal now - I'd prefer to see another 6 months of clearly good editing in other topic areas first. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you are free to make positive contributions to Wikipedia about every other subject you can think of.
 * It's not about telling us things, the evidence of your contributions shows that you very much were disruptive. You need to show us, through your edits, that you no longer are.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan makes it clear that the basis for your topic ban was not just "reverting a sock puppet".
 * In order for your topic ban to be lifted you need to demonstrate three things:
 * That you understand why your past behaviour was disruptive
 * That you are now able to make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia without being disruptive
 * That if the topic ban is lifted you wont return to the behaviour that resulted in the topic ban in the first place.
 * Regarding point 1, not only have you not demonstrated this, it's becoming clear that you don't (or possibly don't want to) understand this; with no recent edits we have no evidence on which to evaluate point 2, but your edits from December do not make a good case for you. The lack of recent edits also make point 3 hard to judge, but your actions on the French Wikipedia after being topic banned here and your lack of understanding of why your actions were disruptive don't fill me with confidence. I'm now a firm decline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would oppose removing the tban at this time. Our first obligation is to the reader, then the editors contributing to those articles in a positive way. I don't see lifting the tban as helping either group, given the statements, prior blocks and insufficient time actually contributing in a constructive manner. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:10, 11 July 2022 (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.

Kurds and Kurdistan: Clerk notes

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


 * This was copied from Arbitration Enforcement. I moved it here as it was ineligible for appeal at AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am not seeing the kinds of evidence that would lead me to over turn this topic ban per the concerns noted by Thryduulf and Dennis Brown. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Decline Actions speak louder than words, and there is ample evidence that lifting this ban would not be constructive. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Decline In light of the evidence, it will take months of good behavior and productive editing before I would consider any other result. - Donald Albury 20:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At the best of times I think taking a break from Wikipedia (which by itself is not a bad thing) and upon returning immediately asking for the lifting of sanctions is problematic, but the editing before the break puts me firmly in the decline camp. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Decline Hasn't even edited in 6 months. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleagues. I would say to Thepharoah17 that I appreciate their edits and this appeal, and the best way to demonstrate that you'll contribute positively in this area is by contributing positively in the many other areas you are already able to. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Xaosflux at 16:44, 6 August 2022 (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


 * This is really to get clarification of this in general, so we can provide any appropriate guidance to admins - not a critique on any specific admin's action. — xaosflux  Talk 16:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
In 2021 the related Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion was passed, and replacing the specific restrictions on users with selection of the Extendedconfirmed user group as requirement. We have had some recent discussion at WP:PERM if this includes any user that any administrator also decides to add to that user group, even if they do not meet the normal requirements, and even if for the explicit purpose of bypassing this remedy. There are sometimes non-remedy reasons to give someone EC early (not related to WP:LEGITSOCKs which I don't think anyone is confused about), when I give someone EC early for some non-remedy reason I normally warn them to purposefully avoid articles under this remedy until they would naturally qualify. So in summary, may admins allow any editor to bypass this remedy by adding them to this user group?

Statement by Selfstudier
The difficulty in the particular case giving rise to this ARCA was compounded by a series of events. A non ecp editor created an AI article for a breaking news event with a clearly POV title and then !voted to support that title in an RM designed to remedy the POV issue. When their non ecp comments in that still open RM were struck as is usual, it transpired that the otherwise still unqualified editor had been granted perms -> kerfuffle. This could possibly have all have been avoided were it possible to auto undo AI article creation by non ecp editors.

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

 * My initial thoughts are that the wording says "extended-confirmed editors", and does not indicate how or why the user has reached this status. This permission, unlike autoconfirmed, can be removed for abuse. As you say, administrators will often grant ECP for users that do not meet the automatically-granting criteria, so one can reasonably make the assumption that unless the admin in question has gone rouge and is promoting the editor for non-benign reasons, the user in question can be assumed to have it for a valid or useful purpose. If that turns out not to be the case, then the user can have the permission removed from their account.In other words, my initial reaction is that I see no issue with an admin granting ECP, full stop, provided it is for a legitimate or otherwise reasonable purpose. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My initial thought is we explicitly decided to link these remedies to ECP, so if ECP changes this would change with it. Or, as in this case, there might be other reasons for ECP and it's OK for an editor to edit in these areas if they have the permission. So if an editor gets the right they can edit the area even if they normally wouldn't qualify. That said I'd be very skeptical of someone requesting the right to edit these areas. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is linked to ECP for better or worse, and incidents of abuse will have to be dealt with on their own. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues above. Context: This change (from "500 edits and 30 days" to "is extended confirmed") was, at least to me, a welcome side effect of the motion we passed. Before the change, users who had gamed EC status could have their EC status revoked but they would still theoretically be allowed to edit PIA4 pages if unprotected. And users who were granted EC status for other reasons would have to be told that they can't edit these pages that they can technically edit. Easier to just tie the social prohibition to the technical access. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no comments since this one from nine days ago, I will instruct the clerks to close this ARCA request. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

 * 'Original discussion''

Initiated by Johnpacklambert at 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Johnpacklambert
My topic ban says I am not allowed to participate in deletion discussion or anything like unto it. The whole discussion in imposing it was about articles. I am wondering if it extends to Categories for discussion, especially such discussions that are only speaking about renaming an existing category, and not at all trying to get a category deleted. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So even asking for clarification of a ban is grounds to consider a siteban on me. That seems extreme. I am trying to go through the proper process and gain better understanding of the matter, and that in and of itself is treated as grounds to support a siteban. This seems harsh. I was trying to get better understanding and go through the proper channels. Treating doing this as grounds to consider even harsher penalties seems very extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording below suggests that some think my very asking about this should result in a ban or block. Such negative reactions to legitimate questions, seem uncalled for. I asked this because another editor that I was speaking of suggested that I should ask about this part of the matter. It is clear that I am not the only person who did not realize that "deletion discussions, broadly construed" would extend to all XfD. The tone that "you asked this question, we should now siteban you", makes it feel like the view is I deserve punishment if I do anything to try to get clarify. It is a very frustrating situation to be in. To not have honest inquires treated as honest. It is the key to avoiding things that will be problematic to ask beforehand, yet when asking itself is treated as something deserving punishment, it is a very frustrating point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that topic bans can be arbitrarily expnaded just because I make comments that someone does not like, without them violating any actual rules of behavior in Wikipedia also seems arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see I may have spoken too broadly in the sports notability discussions. I have revised my comments to address the particular issues they were responding to directly. I am sorry for speaking too broadly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that notability is about deletion is broadly not what it is supposed to be. It is mainly about guiding the underlying creation of articles. I have revised my wording to focus on the guidelines themselves. The ban in no way mentioned sports at all, and to put it in place afterward based on things that were not against any Wikipedia policies or guidelines just seems arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think calling statements of opposition to changing the guidelines for sports notability "battlefield conduct" is not justified. There was an open proposal to change a guideline. I expressed opposition to changing the guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The very fact my asking a question is used to propose a huge increase in the scope of the ban makes me feel like I am being punished for trying to get clarification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel that some of the answers I go earlier were conflicting. For one thing, a statement was that if the discussion at hand could lead to deleting an article, I should steer clear of it, but if it could not, I could participate. That suggestion is one reason to try and get more clarity. I see that deletion of things other than articles is intended to be covered, but that was not entirely clear before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is posting notice on my talk page that I found 2 articles that have the exact same subject, just say a name that was spelled in a minor way differently OK. Or is doing that in violation of the Topic ban as well. I figure I might as well clear up any possible grey area to avoid issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another editor who I trusted suggested that I seek more clarity on this matter. Also, people suggested that the operational question was whether the discussion at hand could result in a deletion. Most CfDs do not have any change of resulting in a deletion. I was at least thinking I could get more clarity. I do not like how I am attacked for seeking clarity. I am an honest, sincere person. I have tried to read and internalize everything that is said. However it was not clear to me if the statement of one person actually represented a consensus view. Maybe I should trust less in other editors, but when they suggest I should at least try to get clarification, I did not realize that seeking clarification would lead to so much negative reaction to my even trying to do it. I am sorry for not fully understanding this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
Your bringing this to WP:ARCA, will not result in a block or ban, JPL. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero
I would like the arbs to consider expanding Johnpacklambert's topic ban to include notability, broadly contrued. Part of the reason that he was topic banned was due to distruption around the notability of atheletes and he is now at WT:Notability (sports) continuing the same sort of behavior. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Johnpacklambert: It has nothing to do with like or dislike. I have no feelings on the subject. What I am pointing out is that you have decided to double down on the area of dispute that you were partly topic banned from rather than exiting the area entirely. Further, you continue your battlefield conduct in that same topic area area and seem to continue to focus on pushing your beliefs around the deletion of a class of article through the avenues open to you . -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 14:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
Note that Seraphimblade has closed the Arbitration Enforcement request with the outcome  and blocked JPL accordingly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2022 (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.

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

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


 * Fixed the clarification to be in the format of a clarification request. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The remedy bans you from participating in "deletion discussions, broadly construed". Deletion discussions at a minimum include the six usual XfD venues, that is AfD, MfD, CfD, RfD, TfD, and FfD. The "broadly construed" qualifier would arguably cover discussions outside those venues that relate to deleting something. As much has been explained in the arbitration enforcement request, and frankly none of this should be a mystery for someone who's been around since 2006. While I'm not leaning at this moment to proposing such a measure, I do wonder whether it would be easier for everyone involved to have a site ban imposed, as there shouldn't be so much difficulty in understanding what is permitted and what is not permitted under such a sanction.  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   13:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with Maxim, this is fairly clear-cut. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, my concurrence above only deals with the scope of the remedy involved; I am not at this point in time commenting on further sanctions. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will note the CfD question was asked and answered during the proposed decision. Johnpacklambert you asked quite a few questions there and I'd encourage you to go back and look at those before filing future ARCAs. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * can you give me a diff of where you got conflicting advice about CfDs? I linked to a direct answer to you which is the one I would have given. Answering questions you have about your topic ban is reasonable but if you're not going to refer to answers you get before asking the same question again, it becomes less reasonable. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnpacklambert has been blocked but to answer his question if the topic ban would prevent him from doing it directly, it's my opinion that trying to get someone else to do it, like by posting on the user talk, is against broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with @Barkeep49. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "deletion discussions, broadly construed" → any method listed under Deletion debates, and includes proxying. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * John, when the current block expires, I suggest you take "broadly construed" very seriously. If editing here as as important to you as you say it is, you need to acknowledge that an arbcom-imposed topic ban is the absolute last level of sanction below a full site ban, and if you do not respect the topic ban and stop testing the edges of it, a full ban is the likely result. --Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Wikicology

 * 'Original discussion''

Initiated by Jayen466 at 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology&oldid=720092831#Wikicology_site-banned


 * 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
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 


 * Information about amendment request
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology&oldid=720092831#Wikicology_site-banned
 * Temporary lifting of site-ban to allow T-Cells (formerly known as Wikicology) to participate in Village Pump discussions concerning his person

Statement by Jayen466
T_Cells' site-ban has come up in the context of his receiving WMF grant money to coordinate the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest. If he is being discussed here then he should, as a basic principle of courtesy, be allowed to comment in that discussion, if he wishes to do so.
 * Thanks, KevinL. I think that fully covers it and nothing more need be done. You will I'm sure watch his talk page and so will I. --Andreas JN 466 22:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Indy beetle
With all due respect to Jayen466, I don't think this is really necessary. The case of Wikicology/T Cells is simply being used as an example for a broader phenomenon, and that discussion is more geared towards WMF process, not the particulars of Wikicology's behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion has moved more into the particulars of the Wikicology case. That said, I see no benefit to creating a precedent whereby every time a case is discussed, we unban and solicit the participation of the formerly banned editors when they have not formally appealed the ban. As an example, the loose ends of the recent deletions discussion arbcase will take at least months to tie up, probably years or even indefinitely. By this standard, Lugnuts' ban would be de facto reversed while the implications of the case and literal thousands of his stubs are scrutinized. That would make no sense. I have no objection to T Cells being informed of the discussion on one of their nonbanned areas of participation, but then they should appeal the arb enforcement the normal way, explaining how they've learned from their mistakes and whatnot. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by HandsomeBoy
I remember clearly most of the events that led to the block of T Cells. I remember I was really pissed at him (his editing style), and how Wikipedia was accommodating him. Fast forward to 2022, and we have a transformed editor that has improved in almost all aspects on and off wiki. I am not supporting this because I got to know him more, I am supporting because the way he handles issues has significantly changed (even reborn) and I am very confident the factors that led to his block will not arise again. This is the right step in the right direction. Back to the subject of this amendment, T Cells has been a dedicated volunteer for Yoruba wiki, Commons and Meta spaces, and I believe this will allow him coordinate the activities better. It has been years, no one should be revoked for life, except in special cases which I do not think this should fall into.

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.

Wikicology: Clerk notes

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



Wikicology: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As an individual administrator action, I will temporarily restore T Cells' talk page access; he can if necessary ask for comments to be copied over from there. I'll reset the TPA block after the village pump discussion has concluded. I don't think further ArbCom action is necessary at this time. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Indy beetle, I hear your concern. I think those cases are distinguishable because the discussion of T Cells involves his activities since the ban and outside enwiki, and it would be prudent to allow him to comment if necessary. I don't think we're setting any general rules here. Unless any arbitrators have an objection, I will direct the clerks to close this ARCA in about 24 hours. (cc ) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @HandsomeBoy, this ARCA really isn't about whether T Cells should be allowed to edit – it's a narrow request to allow him to participate in one discussion involving him. I agree with my colleague below that any substantive change to his sanctions should require an appeal from him, not a third party. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of someone banned on enwiki whose global actions still create problems for enwiki is an interesting one, but I am not a fan of third party appeals in general and this fact pattern doesn't merit an exception. If T Cells would like to appeal their ban, in whole or in part, I would certainly entertain it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It also occurred to me that we have precedent in using the meta talk page when we (enwiki) need to communicate with a banned user on a topic of importance to enwiki with Fram during their ArbCom case. The specifics of that need were different but that seems like the right way to have a dialogue if needed rather than some kind of unasked for temporary unban. I will repeat that if T Cells wishes to appeal their ban through the traditional methods, I am open to that. My thinking in this case has not been about the merits of such an appeal, because there hasn't been a true appeal for me to consider. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. Primefac (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 2022 (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 Mhawk10
The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?

Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of WP:EE WP:ARBEE?

Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an inquiry for a broader understanding, with the giving alerts, talk pages notices, etc. in mind. I was a bit surprised when I didn't see a talk page notice on the Poisoning of Alexei Navalny page even though there is one on the Alexei Navalny page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the facts at this AN thread, I think that some users (like me) would benefit from knowing whether the topic of Crimean Tatars within the Soviet Union (for example) is within the scope of WP:EE WP:ARBEE. I don't think it's entirely abstract at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * altered WP:EE links to WP:ARBEE Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your definition is reasonable and I'd appreciate clarification along those lines. However, if the arbitration committee would prefer to see an active dispute relating to the scope before adopting a definition, that is the committee's prerogative, and I will respect that decision while keeping this ARCA as a base for future discussions that may arise. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella
How about the Soviet satellite state of East Germany? Additional illustration - Greece and the European part of Turkey. This might be confusing to the young (born in 2000 +) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay
If my memory serves me correctly? The countries in Europe that were under Soviet influence or control, were described as "Eastern European countries", as being behind the "Iron Curtain". The East (Communist) vs West (Democracy), etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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



Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is there an actual issue at the moment where this would clarification would have an impact or is it an inquiry for a broader understanding (such as editors who might need an alert, talk pages where the notice would appear, etc)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I also don't see a one size fits all answer here and the AN thread linked as a reason why an answer is needed doesn't strike me as a particularly great place to weigh in either. The best I can offer is that at least some parts of Russian topics will fall with-in the scope of EE. Do all parts? That's what I'm not ready to say today, as maybe yes, maybe no. I would need more input from the community than this ARCA has achieved for me to say. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the original disputes that led to this particular discretionary sanctions regime is that the disputes were more along ethnic lines within certain parts of Europe. The various situations presented in the original request for clarification all seem to be edge cases, and would be probably best dealt with on the individual merits of a known conflict or dispute as it arises; the particulars of geographical location would be but one factor in determining whether this discretionary sanctions regime applies. For example, ethnic disputes involving Kazakhstan would probably be lumped under "Central Asia" and not "Eastern Europe (let's ignore for a moment what does and doesn't have a DS regime presently). In contrast, my instinct would be to lump anything Russia-related under Eastern Europe given the likely cultural basis for a dispute. But, I should emphasize again that I don't see a good one-size-fits-all answer here.  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Crimea is in Eastern Europe, so editing conflicts related to that region (and to go along with Maxim's line of reasoning, ethnic-related conflicts in particular) would fall under the Eastern Europe DS regime. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this a generational/cultural thing requiring memories pre-dating the fall of the wall (1989)? Eastern Europe is the former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking this over but the response here suggests that a clarification by motion (instead of a routine archiving of this ARCA) would be appropriate. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the case and can agree to define "Eastern Europe", for the purposes of the DS remedy, as . But my sense is that steam has gone out here – I doubt there's appetite for clarification by motion. @Red-tailed hawk, would it be satisfactory to close this ARCA and file a new one if needed in the future? Make sure to link this ARCA and discussion in future ARCAs so that future committees have a jumping-off point. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this actually causing problems? Do we have any examples of misunderstandings that are leading to sanctions being actioned or not actioned based on this misunderstanding, or are we simply looking at the hypothetical on the terminology. It's a "broadly construed" topic for a reason - because there is some grey area in terminology, and I'd rather we didn't get bogged down in minutiae when it's not causing any actual problems. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: Gender and sexuality

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 21:21, 7 September 2022 (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 Sideswipe9th
I'd like to request clarification on the title, and scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions please. There appears to be a disconnect between the title of the case, and the text of the remedy. The title of the case implies that this case covers all edits relating to both gender and sexuality, however the text of the remedy states that the scope is limited to [disputes] regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender (remedy 1), and any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force (remedy 2). While there is considerable overlap between the various communities under the LGBT+ umbrella, with many individuals belonging to more than community, by a plain reading of the text, neither of the two active remedies in the case involve sexuality.

My requests for clarification are;
 * Are edits relating to sexuality within the scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, if those edits are in relation to a person who is not trans or non-binary?
 * If edits relating to sexuality are within the scope, can the text of the remedy be amended to make this clearer?
 * If edits relating to sexuality are not within the scope, can the name of the case be amended to make this clearer?

Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm confused by both 's comments. Per MJL, the text for a GENSEX ds/talk notice states The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them, which by a plain reading implies that the sanctions are limited in scope to edits relating only to trans or non-binary people. However BDD said the answer to my first question, which was asking if the GENSEX d/s covers edits relating to sexuality of a person who is not trans or non-binary, is yes.
 * Both of these things cannot simultaneously be true. Either the GENSEX sanctions cover disruptive sexuality edits which are not about trans or non-binary people, or they do not. Consider the following two examples, based off of a discussion MJL and I just had on the Wikipedia Discord:
 * User:DisruptiveEditor makes a series of disruptive edits to Homosexuality and its related talk page. The exact specifics don't matter, except that the edits do not involve any content about trans or non-binary people or related issues. The edits are solely about homosexuality. Are these edits within scope of these sanctions?
 * User:TotallyNotASock writes a draft article on Aromantic Asexuality (note, two separate pages linked there), within which they are subtly POV pushing in a way that disagrees with what sources actually say on that concept. On the talk page they have being rude, and accusing anyone who challenges the content of bias. Within that page, there is no content relating to trans or non-binary people. Are those edits within the scope of these sanctions?
 * I don't really have any concrete thoughts on whether or not this is best handled by ARCA, or a new case. I do have a slight fear over the later potentially resulting in a lesser scope or removal of the sanctions, in such a way that it could embolden future disruptive editors, but I think that's just my own internal anxiety. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Primefac, I don't think homosexuality has stopped being a contentious subject. There's a bunch of pushback right now, across the world, on various LGBT+ rights.
 * Why do I feel that the current sanctions cover edits relating to only trans and/or non-binary individuals? Because that is what the plain of the text at the case states; Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, and Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. The second quotation explicitly limits the scope to edits involving trans and/or non-binary people, and the first implicitly does so by a plain reading of the phrase gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
 * As for why I'm asking for this clarification, in the text of the current case, the word sexuality appears in the text eight times. In all eight of those occurrences, it is present because it is part of the title. Nowhere else in the shell case is sexuality mentioned. This is also true for the current text of both GamerGate and Manning naming dispute cases, where all 8 uses of the word sexuality are in describing the effects of the current shell case. The only case involved in this tree that actually mentions sexuality, is the now largely repealed Sexology, where one editor was topic banned from human sexuality, and standard discretionary sanctions seemed to apply through a very broad definition of the word paraphilia.
 * Perhaps I'm mistaken in how I'm reading this, and I hope I am because as per Aquillion the plain reading of the text does not appear to fit within the scope of how the sanctions are actually used at AE. If I am, I'd appreciate it greatly if any editor could point out where, outside of the title, it is stated that the Gender and sexuality sanctions apply to the topic of sexuality where that topic does not intersect with gender, because I just cannot see it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And just in case it's not clear, I'd like to state clearly that in no way do I want to weaken or undermine the current sanctions or how they are used in practice. I would like to see them strengthened, by more clearly defining what content they cover. An implied meaning via the phrase gender-related dispute doesn't really achieve this, because even reasonable people can have disagreements on what exactly is or is not a gender-related dispute, and unreasonable people could use the ambiguity to try and wikilawyer for why the sanctions do not apply to a given page. For a related example of this ambiguity in practice leading to wikilawyering, read the initial comments by Maneesh in the Maneesh AE case.
 * My ideal solution would either be rephrasing the text at the Standard discretionary sanctions section, or adding a second sanction:
 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. becomes Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to both; any gender-related dispute or controversy, or any sexuality-related dispute or controversy, and their associated people. Changes in bold.
 * Or add Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any sexuality-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
 * That way it is more clear that the gender and sexuality sanctions cover both gender, and sexuality as separate topics in their own right, and not just at their intersection points. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd prefer the course of action that's the least hassle on the community. If there's a rough consensus that the GENSEX sanctions currently cover sexuality related edits distinct from gender, then my preferred course would be that a simple tweak to the language of the existing sanctions, just to clarify their already existing scope. If there's rough consensus that the sanctions do not currently cover sexuality related edits distinct from gender, then I mildly prefer Barkeep's proposed plan as I kinda prefer the structure that's inherent ARC over the multitude of forms a discussion at AN could take, but either plan works well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Seren Dept
I believe the scope notes you refer to are preceded by this, the active remedy, which is much more broad:


 * ...with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people."

I think the elements you're referring to specifically are there just to be clear about situations from preceding cases or clarification requests. At the time of GamerGate there had already been several fraught cases and I think the committee decided that participants would move these fights to other similar topics or that similar conflicts would appear later.

Seren_Dept 00:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh my bad, I focused on the idea that the scope was limited by the specific inclusions in the motion, but it's true that sexuality isn't mentioned at all in the active remedy. I'd construe most disputes about sexuality as being related to gender, but I can see that's arguable, and anyway it's not me making the decisions. Seren_Dept 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Firefly
I think whether this needs a case depends on the nature of the request - is it clerical or substantive:
 * "This case / discretionary sanctions regime has an inaccurate name which is causing confusion"
 * Fix: change the name/shortcut by motion.
 * "This discretionary sanctions regime doesn't adequately cover the topic(s) where disruption exists, and should be expanded"
 * Fix: file a case noting the disruption that isn't covered by the DS regime; one of the options available to the arbitrators would be to expand it.

I realise this may be stating the obvious, but I think it's important that we clearly define what the actual issue is here. I do not know enough about the topic to offer an opinion there unfortunately. firefly ( t · c ) 08:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
I think it is extremely clear that the gender and sexuality case applies to gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people as described at WP:GENSEX; that was roughly the scope of the Gamergate discretionary sanctions that it replaced, and nothing, at any point in the discussion or outcome of that transfer, suggested that the intent was to narrow the scope of the sanctions. In fact, the entire reason it was done by motion was simply to rename the sanctions specifically to reflect that broad scope. It has also been repeatedly and continuously used under that broader scope since then without anyone objecting; see eg:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive282
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive296
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive296
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive296
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive298
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive299
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive304
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive305
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive308

...and many more besides; I stopped there, but basically every AE discussion I could find that fell under GENSEX would not fall under the narrow scope implied by the bit above. The four listed points are a mere poorly-worded addition to the existing scope and should be fixed by motion. It absolutely does not require a full case, and the suggestion that it does is a terrible idea because entertaining the possibility that the gensex DSes have ever not applied to any gender-related dispute or controversy would effectively throw the vast majority of WP:GENSEX AE actions taken in the time since the Gamergate sanctions were renamed into doubt. --Aquillion (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by MJL
This case was so named after a community comment on the matter as to where the discretionary sanctions originally authorized by GamerGate should be located. It was decided to relocate the sanctions authorization into a new shell case. If you want to see the extensive conversation about the case name, I would defer to the discussion that happened post-announcement (where this ground was previously tread). For the record, there used to be Arbcom discretionary sanctions on sexuality authorized through Sexology, but they were repealed in 2017 for being redundant with GamerGate. There's a lot of history here. Unless given evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty sure most of the concerns raised in this request are just hypothetical. I don't think many people are confused about the scope of these sanctions since templates like make it pretty clear what's exactly covered. That isn't to say I wouldn't like to see a full case on the matter... A wider evaluation may be sorely needed for GENSEX, but I've pretty much gave up on the topic area some time ago. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, GENSEX doesn't just cover gender minorities; men and Women both can fall under gender-related disputes or controversies. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I fully align with Kevin's thoughts on the matter here for what it's worth. { &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
Homosexuality, sexual orientation, and all of sexuality, are "gender-related disputes or controversies" IMO. Levivich😃 17:18, 10 September 2022 (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.

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse given I've commented above. firefly  ( t · c ) 08:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Recuse. I was a bit WP:INVOLVED in this topic area. I have comments I'd like to make as well. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I have some opinions about the answers to the questions posed here. But I can't help but wonder if rather than giving the answers here if a case, similar to PIA4, might not be better in arriving at the right answer for the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also support the alternative path that L235 suggests below where the community comes to some consensus and we change the remedy based on that community consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The four numbered items at the amended remedy are "preserve[d] previous clarifications", not the entire scope of the topic. So yes to the first question. I thought the language as is is clear, but if a tweak is needed, fine. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with BDD. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , maybe I am missing some context, but at what point did homosexuality stop being a contentious subject? The world has certainly come a long way in the last century, but it is still very much a problem to be homosexual in very many places in the world. Why do you feel that only "non-binary and transgender" individuals are included under this DS umbrella?  Primefac (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As the motion explicitly states, points #1-4 are intended to preserve previous clarifications through various ARCAs at the new case. However, it is apparent from this request that there is a degree of confusion about (a) whether disputes related to sexuality are considered to be covered, and (b) if not, then whether they ought to be covered. I personally think the answer to (a) is "many, but not all, and it's arguable", and (b) is "it'd take a review case or a community request to establish that need". If there is community desire to establish everything related to sexuality as covered by DS, I would suggest the following path:
 * A community discussion requests that ArbCom authorize sexuality-related DS, or directly authorizes sexuality-related community-authorized discretionary sanctions, per General sanctions
 * ArbCom adopts a motion to change the Remedy 1 wording from to, and supersedes the community GS if needed.
 * The alternative would be a review case as suggested by @Barkeep49. (or, a better alternative if nothing is really broken, is to do nothing.) Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No community member seems to have actively requested a review case, so from my perspective, ArbCom's role here is done unless the community requests expanding the scope. I will therefore ask the clerks to close this request in about 24 hours. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing (October 2022)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Red-tailed hawk at 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Request for Comment, as amended by Amendment (September 2022)


 * 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
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * diff of notification Valereee


 * Information about amendment request
 * Request for Comment, as amended by Amendment (September 2022)
 * I am asking that a decision of RfC moderator to strike question #7 from Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale be overturned by amendment and the question be restored for discussion.

Statement by Red-tailed hawk
I am asking that a decision of to strike question #7 from Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale be overturned and Question 7 be restored for discussion. The proposal would create a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, as follows:

After discussing with Valereee on the talk page of the RfC, Valeree clarified that the reason for the solution being out-of-scope was not that the principle that "all mass-created articles must have a reliable sourced indication of important" is out-of-scope, agreeing that the proposals: and would appear to be in-scope for this RfC (though Valereee expressed concerns about the ability of the latter to attain consensus). The rationale for striking Question #7 and not the other two without an enforcement mechanism was that the particular solution to the problems posed by creation of articles at scale involves deletion is focused primarily on creating a new criterion for speedy deletion and doesn't feel like it's something that is keeping bad articles from being mass created. That being said, RfC Rule#2 notes that [t]he sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about policy going forward surrounding creation of articles at scale and to form consensus on those solutions, and I frankly fail to see why the moderator would restrict the ability to propose a policy solution relating to the creation of articles at scale on the sole basis that doing so directly involves deletion of articles. This leaves the option of floating the general principle without an enforcement mechanism (which leaves it vulnerable to criticism that the proposal lacks an enforcement mechanism) or the option of treating this through the lens of user misconduct (which I'm not sure is the best way to handle this), but it bars us from discussion what I believe is the best way to deal with mass-created articles that violate the central principle. The discussion had involved several editors, both in support and opposition, before it was closed by the moderator. As the arbitration decision, as amended in September 2022, states that [a]ny appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, I ask that ArbCom provide final clarity by either overturning the moderator's action to re-open the close or explicitly affirm the decision of the moderator that the proposal would be appropriate for discussion at what the moderator terms the RfC on AfD. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee
The question of RTH's that I hatted was primarily about creating a new CSD. I think this is better handled at the second RfC. I do understand there's a blurry line between the two RfCs, but my feeling is that the question of deletion processes for dealing with problematic mass creation is better handled at the second RfC, after we've discovered whether the community can come up with a solution to problematic mass creation itself. Or even a definition of problematic mass creation. I believe until we can answer those questions, discussing deletion is probably spinning our wheels.

Statement by Rhododendrites
This seems overcomplicated for what is ultimately: does a proposal deal with creating articles? Go ahead and propose it. Does it deal with deleting articles? Wait for the next RfC. Yes, all of them are going to be connected, which is why we're having both and not stopping at the end of this RfC. The collapsing by Valereee seems like an example of exactly why someone has been given the ability to moderate the discussion IMO. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:32, 5 October 2022 (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.

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

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



Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I find myself agreeing with Valereee and Rhododendrites on this matter; the first RFC is to find and develop solutions to issues surrounding article creation at scale, with the second to be on article deletions at scale. Creating a new CSD category pretty clearly falls into the latter camp. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with V, R, and PF in this matter. --Izno (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. This issue belongs in the next RfC. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This was amended to allow for two RfCs and gives the mods discretion about how to sequence that. I see no reason to think that this decision falls outside a reasonable use of that discretionary power. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with @Barkeep49. We did not impose limits on the moderators' ability to sequence the questions, and the moderators' decision was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request: American politics 2

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Interstellarity at 15:26, 2 October 2022 (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 Username]
 * [diff of notification Username]

Statement by Interstellarity
The Watergate scandal article seems to be covered for the AP2 sanction, but it was placed before the date was changed from 1932 to 1992. I am hoping that someone can clarify if the sanction should be removed.

Statement by Thryduulf (AP2)
Are the sanctions still required? The talk page is extremely quiet and a glance at the article history shows nothing that the pending changes isn't handling and might even be handled better by standard semi protection. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin
I think a lot of the issue here is some poorly-worded templates. I've started a discussion at. Arbs, would anything I've proposed there require ArbCom sign-off to implement? -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC) For what it's worth, after looking through case history and WP:AELOG, the legacy/obsolete breakdown for fully-rescinded DS regimes would appear to be:
 * We could easily keep track of which topic areas have active page restrictions by tweaking the template to categorize restrictions by topic area. That would leave a few edge cases where a talk page is marked with a template other than ds/talk notice, but that's not something that should be happening in the first place, so good to clean up in either case, and is a one-time up-front cost. There'd also be the matter of checking for active sanctions against editors in each area, but again, minimal cost, and once you've assessed that once, it'll be very easy to keep track of going forward.But in the alternative, that part of my proposal is easily severable from the rest. Just keep all the repealed topic areas under the current single heading on ds/topics/doc, but append a note to the effect of In most cases, sanctions and restrictions in rescinded areas remain in effect, and sanctions and restrictions in superseded cases have been transferred to the newer authorization; see the relevant motions in the cases linked below for more information. Or don't do that at all and ignore that sub-proposal entirely, since the editnotices and talknotices will explain, and that's the main thing that matters. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 17:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Page restrictions in effect:
 * Macedonia: Many sanctions, mostly of now-inactive editors; 1RRs at Kosovo, Croatian language, World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia; indef semi at Macedonian.
 * Editor sanctions still in effect, but no page restrictions:
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy: 1 TBAN of a now-inactive editor. (An indef is also logged, but I don't think that counts?)
 * Austrian economics: 1 TBAN of an active editor
 * Ayn Rand: 1 TBAN of a now-inactive editor
 * Sexology as applies to trans issues: 1 0RR of a banned user's sock; 1 TBAN of a since-banned user. There's also one sanction from 2022; not sure if that's a clerical error or if there's a special circumstance.
 * Transcendental meditation: 1 behavioral restriction against a now-inactive editor.
 * Obsolete:
 * ... because all sanctions/restrictions have been moved to other cases:
 * GamerGate → Gender and sexuality
 * GGTF → Gender and sexuality
 * ... because all sanctions/restrictions have expired or been lifted:
 * Gibraltar
 * Landmark Worldwide
 * Scientology (as best I can tell? the logging is a bit of a mess)
 * Senkaku Islands
 * Tea Party movement
 * Waldorf education
 * ... because no sanctions/restrictions were ever imposed:
 * Cold fusion 2
 * Crosswiki issues
 * Homeopathy
 * Monty Hall problem
 * Sexology as applies to paraphilias
 * Tree shaping

-- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 21:52, 8 October 2022 (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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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



American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Existing sanctions placed before the date change remain in effect. See the motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * this is anexample of why I support the proposed change in DSREFORM to allow any admin to remove page restrictions after a year. But I will note that as the sanctioning admin is no longer an administrator, you would be free to modify it if you wish under current DS rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * with the above, but agreed (though technically this is a page restriction, not a sanction, but the motion still keeps it in force). Primefac (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with Barkeep in full. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin, your suggestions there sound great. Under the current rules they require arbcom approval. (The current WP:DS2022 process seeks to allow clerks to authorize changes after consulting the committee, rather than requiring the committee itself to authorize changes.) Consider this note my vote of approval and if no arb objects I think you should consider this ARCA to be approval. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the one hand I can see the wisdom of what @Tamzin proposes especially with Muhammed image's upcoming sunsest. On the other hand, it creates more for future clean-up as arbcom would have to figure out if the sanction still exists anywhere, especially given that repealing page protections is going to get easier in the upcoming DS reform. I am not sure that this change offers enough benefit to justify the increased bureaucracy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a clear and significant upgrade in documentation versus a frankly pretty small amount of cleanup burden. It'll take much more time for Tamzin to code up the template than it'll take the clerks to check periodically whether something is done (and that is really not urgent). As I've discussed with you, better templates and documentation is my #1 goal with DS, and this is an example of why. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am guessing you feel a lot more strongly about this than I do and that should perhaps carry the day but I think this creates work now and in the future. Like if this had been in place, doing the AMPOL date change would have been a ton more work as existing sanctions get sorted into whether it's still applicable or needed to shift to the legacy. We've gone 20+ months with this change before anyone brought it up and have done loads of these in the past. You say that this is better template and documentation and I say "sure but is it worth the cost of doing it?" to which I remain very unsure despite what you and Tamzin say here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of backlogs on Wikipedia that are not urgent and are done on an as-available basis. Recategorizing old AP2 page restrictions seems like it falls in that category. It's important to me because there are a lot of little unfriendly things in our DS documentation that in combination make it really hard for editors to understand and participate. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that the prospect of that work might mean that the change never happens at all. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it'll happen. Even if it doesn't, I think we should authorize the work to happen, so it can happen over time if someone wishes to do so, rather than ask us again at another ARCA. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Barkeep's answer to the question is completely accurate. I appreciate there is a possibility that the page restriction is not the right one though. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with L235 regarding the suggested changes and their merits, and Barkeep's original comment and followup to Thryduulf. I also think this matter can be closed, seeing as the original question was answered a month ago. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)