Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Ashvio at 04:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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 Ashvio
Hello, I am seeking general clarification to WP:ARBECR, specifically the section below:
 * "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions."

This section gives some examples of what an internal project discussion might be, but it does not clearly define it. This led to some confusion and wasted time on my part in an EC-protected article, since both I and an arbitration committee clerk believed it would be an allowed topic at first.

I would like the rules to be amended to include a specific definition of what an internal project discussion not included in the given list actually refers to, since non-experienced editors would be unfamiliar with that process and it affects them the most.

Also, apologies in advance if I made some mistakes with this template, this is my first request here.

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashvio (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit, 10/22/2023: I would also like to see additional clarification on whether internal project discussions around a topic are only prohibited on talk or other pages directly created for that article, or whether they are prohibited across the website. For example, if someone starts a consensus discussion in the NPOV Noticeboard that related to Israel/Palestine, can non-EC contribute to this? The answer seems very unclear to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashvio (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
The way I've always seen the goal of this clause is that if some new user spots some glaring issue or problem with an article, there should be a way for them to point that out without it being immediately dismissed under the restriction. But non-EC editors are not meant to influence consensus-making processes (especially because of socking issues in ARBECR topics). Maybe the restriction should be clarified to say something more like "internal and consensus-making discussions", although I suppose most talk-page discussions are consensus-making discussions of some sort. Galobtter (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with BilledMammal/Tamzin's proposal for limiting the edits to just making edit requests. Most good-faith new editors will be doing that, so we can still get those contributions, while preventing this litigation over talk-page editing. I feel like this comes up semi-often at AE, and it's not uncommon to have to ban an editor from talk pages until they are EC, so making the rules clearer (whether stricter or looser) would be beneficial, especially since the people who have to be explained the rules are new.
 * Though since I mostly see ECR topic areas through the lens of AE perhaps there's more useful contributions from non-EC editors than I would think. Galobtter (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
I don't do a lot of editing in this topic area, and most of my familiarity with the issues comes from seeing some Arbcom cases and handling edit requests. I never personally experienced the issues that caused an entire topic area to be placed under extended-confirmed protection, including "internal project discussions." What I know is that the current status quo for the half-in/half-out talk page participation of non-EC editors is not working. From what I saw, the main reason to establish the 30/500 rule which extended to RFCs and project space discussions was due to sockpuppetry. Like Galobtter, I thought the point was to allow non-EC editors to make edit requests and point out glaring issues. If we're allowing non-EC editors to take part in consensus establishing discussions, that protection is thrown out the window. Currently, at pages like Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion around a quarter of recent talk page posts have been made by non-EC editors. This discussion on that talk page has four non-EC editors and two EC editors. This discussion has four of ten non-EC. This discussion has seven of twenty-one non-EC editors. This leads to several issues and questions. Without significantly more guidance the rules as they stand now are essentially worthless. No one knows where the lines are, or the exact purpose of the rules. The amount of non-EC editing also creates a huge burden on those trying to patrol these pages for disruptive or over-the-line non-EC edits. If the purpose of the draconian measures implemented because we were at our wit's end is to prevent possible socks from shaping the ARBPIA articles, it's not working. If the purpose is to save editor time and effort, it's not working. If the purpose is to make the topic easier for administrators to patrol and mop, it's not working. This needs significant clarification, both of intent and where exactly the lines are drawn. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Should those closing discussions, or otherwise assessing consensus, discount the input of non-EC editors?
 * Does that mean you have to look at the contribution count or permissions of everyone you don't recognize in a discussion to verify they can contribute to consensus?
 * Do EC editors have to spend any time (editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia) responding to or refuting non-EC editors?
 * Should SPAs that made 500 edits to ARBPIA talk pages be extended-confirmed?
 * Can non-EC editors contribute to consensus establishing discussions just because they don't have the RFC tag?
 * What amount of contribution from non-EC editors is acceptable? Is it acceptable to partially block non-EC SPAs?


 * , noticeboard discussions are specifically called out as prohibited. This is included in the text you copied to your request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , if a quarter of the discussion shaping consensus is by non-ec editors then it's clear that the way the rule is explained and enforced isn't working, especially with no guidance for closers or editors assessing consensus. If the rule is supposed to allow for clear edit requests and comments on plainly obvious issues, but the non-EC editors are taking part in establishing consensus, then the rule isn't working as intended. Is that how the sanction is supposed to work? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , regarding what you said here, we'd be here anyway because I was preparing to open a request as soon as I found the time. No amount of discretion on Andrevan's part would have changed that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And in the meantime the issues I brought up above continue to grow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we going to allow editors to get extended-confirmed primarily through editing ARBPIA talk pages? This is going to be coming up fairly soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This address most of my concerns. The only issue remaining is editors who reached extended-confirmed significantly through editing ARBPIA articles, but this will stem that tide.
 * The new template would also be quite a boon. I appreciate the work you've put into this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Andrevan
If I'm not supposed to comment here please revert this edit. I don't think loosening this restriction is a good idea. Many new redlink editors have been signing up. It's already chaos. I think if anything, we should make it clear that admins should be taking a stronger hand in reverting non-ECR contributions that fall afoul the guideline. Loosening it or eliminating it will undoubtedly open the floodgates to new editors to significantly influence the discussion without the requisite time to learn and understand policy and guideline, and how they are implemented. Andre🚐 00:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I endorse Tamzin's proposal Andre🚐 06:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose Barkeep49/Levivich's proposal and agree with Guerillero. I agree with SFR. It's not bad faith to observe obvious rampant socking. It could be legitimate CLEANSTART or legitimate alternate account use, but there sure are a lot of red linked new editors who know their way around. Andre🚐 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My 2c, I agree with Kevin that making a special place to serve as the dumping ground will just become another neglected backlog, so I oppose that, if my opinion is worth any hill of beans at this point. I like Tamzin's proposal as a first step, and if that fails, it can be enhanced further or undone and done differently. Decisions are sometimes a revolving door and sometimes a one-way street, but mostly on Wikipedia we can pivot and fail fast. Regarding the socking issue, it's a fine line. We have to AGF that a new user who knows too much is probably a CLEANSTART or a legitimate alternate account and not a sock, meatpuppet, ban evader, etc. Unfortunately, that's naive. This topic area is flooded with activist accounts and people who want to make a difference but don't understand our policies. Andre🚐 14:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal
If I can suggest a solution: Limit non-extended confirmed editors to making edit requests and the subsequent discussion of their edit requests. It will allow those editors to provide the input we want from them - identifying errors and omissions in the article, including "this source looks bad, we should remove it" - without letting them get too involved in discussions that could result in their comments being interpreted as contributing towards consensus. 01:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Should SPAs that made 500 edits to ARBPIA talk pages be extended-confirmed? I think this is part of the broader problem of "gaming" ECP restrictions. Personally, I think the best way to resolve that is to update what qualifies an editor for extended-confirmed; I would advocate that we change it to:
 * 500 significant edits overall
 * Including at least 250 in main space
 * Including at least 100 in talk space
 * Significant edits defined as "larger than 200 bytes" (the definition the community has been using at the various WP:LUGSTUBS requests)
 * This should prevent gaming, both in general and the way that you discuss - however, I'm not sure ARBCOM has the authority to implement such a change, so it may be better to raise it at the village pump? BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t have time to look into the codebase at the moment, but I suspect we can sidestep any technical challenge there because extended-confirmed is a permission that can be granted or revoked by any admin.
 * Rather than relying on MediaWiki to automatically grant the permission we could create an adminbot to automatically grant the permission to any eligible user; I believe such a bot would relatively simple to create, and the only downside I can see is that it would probably take a couple of minutes longer than MediaWiki to grant the permission to eligible editors. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin
I generally agree with SFR's analysis, and agree with Andrevan that the solution is stricter moderation on talkpages. What I would suggest is something like this: This limits non-EC participation to constructive edit requests, rather than the more nebulous "constructive comments", and leaves room for common-sense leeway on less-trafficked pages. It gives more weight to the role of protecting talkpages, without requiring it. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Guerillero: If you pursue my suggestion, now might also be a good time to use a more natural scope than just the Talk: namespace. That excludes, say, anything in Portal talk: or WP:EFFP. I would just make it "content page" and "discussion page", footnoting definitions if necessary. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 14:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by
My involvement with ECP restriction is mainly at Russian invasion of Ukraine per WP:GS/RUSUKR, where there have been multiple RfCs and RMs. Such discussions are clearly covered by the restriction. There is a current open RfC here. The process adopted is to place the following warning as part of the RfC. The discussion have generally been self-regulating, in that comments placed by non-ECP uses are removed by ECP editors as they appear. If a non-ECP edit receives a response before it is deleted, the original edit is struck or both edits, with consent of the ECP user (or an option for them to reinstate). Posts falling to WP:NOTAFORUM are usually quickly deleted or closed, citing the restriction. While perhaps not perfect, it has generally worked well (IMHO). I don't see any particular uncertainty wrt what constitutes an internal project discussion. It is not surprising that it is a non-ECP user that has raised this request. WP:CIR applies and with experience comes competence.

30/500 is easy to check. 's suggestion has merit but it may not be as easy to check. To 's suggestion to restrict non-ECPs to edit requests only, I believe that non-ECPs can contribute constructively to TP discussions beyond this but the value may be outweighed in a particularly new and contentious topic such as the recent events in Gaza. In such cases, it may be appropriate to have an additional level of restriction with auto confirmed or ECP restrictions applying to all edits on the TPs affected. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war has 6,180 edits by 1024 editors in less than 2 weeks while Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine has 15,527 edits by 2,072 editors since the invasion began. The Gaza events are exceptional even when compared with other exceptionally contentious evolving events. The sheer volume of traffic on the TP is arguably unmanageable, especially when one factors in that most of it will come from users of little experience and of little value, that are generally more disruptive than constructive. While ECPR may be adequate in many/most situations, there will be times when it is inadequate.

Considering the discussion here, this suggest the need for a higher level of protection that might best be achieved by a new level rather than amending ECPR. For argument sake, call this new level experienced editor confirmed (EEC). This level would be along the lines suggested by and confirmation would/could be automated as it is for EC editors. The status of editors should be easy to check. It would be easier if their status was displayed at the top of their contributions page.

There will be times when it is appropriate to restrict access to article TPs per because of the sheer volume of edits of which the largest proportion are disruptive or unconstructive (including edit requests that are often vague). I would suggest this be an option rather than an intrinsic part of ECPR (or EECR) - eg ECPRT (and EECPRT) would apply to article talk pages. The restrictions would still apply to noticeboards etc but I don't see a way to easily automate controls in these cases and they are not going to be a primary focus for disruption.

I don't think that the proposal by would solve much. It might become a repository for all the bad apples that nobody wants to deal with. My thoughts for what they are worth. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
I would simplify it. ECP all the pages, including talk pages, and then set up one noticeboard page for non-EC editors to post about whatever in the topic area (errors, edit requests, opinions, etc.). Other editors can watch that noticeboard if they want to and respond to or action posts made there. A standard template can direct non-EC editors to that noticeboard. Basically, make it work like a topic-wide WP:ERRORS. This will allow non-EC editors to make edit requests and whatnot, while not requiring other editors to have to police non-EC comments on talk pages.

For editors who think this is exclusionary, I challenge you to come up with 3 or 5 productive comments from non-EC editors in this topic area in the last two weeks or so--the kind of comment where if it wasn't for the non-EC editor's comment, we would have missed something. I don't think I've seen that many. I believe it's fundamentally too complex of a topic area (and our policies are too complex) for new editors to be helpful rather than distracting or obstructive, and if we do lose anything, it's tiny, like maybe a few good comments out of hundreds of wasteful ones. Levivich (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem with limiting it to edit requests only is that we're just going to get a bunch of edit request saying "Wikipedia is biased" and the like. Requiring non-EC editors to use a specific template when they post will not solve any problems, regardless of whether it's an edit request template or some other template. Levivich (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ros has a good point that limiting to edit-reqs would help highlight/identify non-EC comments, so problematic ones can be more easily removed. Perhaps that's an interim step worth trying, short of full topic-wide ECP.
 * But IMO, that would only work if there was a technical limitation that limited non-EC editors to only posting edit-reqs, and only commenting in edit-req threads. Can an edit filter do that? Can a bot patrol talk pages and automatically remove non-EC comments that aren't in edit req threads? I don't know.
 * What I see as "the problem" is this: look at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war, which of the editors voting are non-EC? One has to go through them one by one to check (or maybe there's an adminhighlighter-type script?). A solution to that problem would be one that doesn't require any person to go through !votes one by one to see if the voter is EC or not. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill
I'm not entirely opposed to Levivich's suggestion, but I do think that limiting non-EC editors to edit requests does in fact significantly address the disruption concerns. Sure, new editors will still be able to post bad-faith or malformed edit requests, but these "contributions" will be obviously out of order and easily shut down or removed by experienced editors and/or admins; there won't be any of the confusion that currently exists when a non-EC editor engages in an open ended discussion regarding article content. signed,Rosguill talk 15:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Pppery
I would suggest, if the currently-proposed motion passes, enforcing it with an edit filter. Lightly-tested edit filter code: page_namespace = 1 & "" in old_wikitext & ! ("extendedconfirmed" in user_rights) & ! ("edit request" in lcase(added_lines)) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
Agree with tightening the restrictions as commented by several. Idk if this is out of scope here but the could be/might be restriction on non ec editors creating new articles has caused a few issues recently, see this AN discussion. I think this should also be tightened up, any such articles to be immediately draftified and ec protected. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
I favor limiting non-EC editors in these articles to edit requests only, or something like Levivich's proposal - anything that would make it clear when an editor is non-EC. The fact is that even on very controversial articles, many disputes don't end up going to a full RFC due to the time and energy involved, and are instead settled by a quick nose-count on talk or by editors bowing out in the face of overwhelming opposition. In articles that have a long history of socking or meatpuppetry (which these restrictions are meant to address) that makes it easier for persistent puppets to give the false appearance of support for their position. Additionally, it allows them to try and filibuster articles, wearing down the time and energy of legitimate users. Edit requests would make it more obvious if a restricted article is being targeted by socks or meatpuppets, since they couldn't support each other in edit requests and repeated edit requests for the same thing would be obvious; and of course directing them to a noticeboard could be even better, since a flood of comments there would likely alert established users that the article may be getting targeted (while still providing a reasonable outlet if there's an actual problem that needs to be fixed.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2023 (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.

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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



Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I think this is a legitimate question (and qualifies for WP:BANEXEMPT), since I think there are a lot of ways in which reasonable people could disagree about interpretation. My tentative answer (and I will wait for more thoughts before making this final) is that there are two broad buckets of "internal project discussions", based on our precedent and the list of examples ("AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions"). The first is "meta/process": policy discussions and policy RfCs, dispute resolution, conduct enforcement, noticeboards, projectspace ("Wikipedia:" namespace) — anything related to that group is an internal project discussion. The second is "consensus-seeking" discussions: anything that seeks to establish consensus for a particular outcome or decision (such as an AfD, RM, RfC, etc.), whether labeled as such or not. In any event, we should definitely clarify and flesh out these categories, perhaps by amending the text of WP:ARBECR. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some quick examples of talk page contributions that I see as fine are: (1) edit requests (but not ones that have previously had consensus against them); (2) questions or concerns about existing content, for example about the reliability of sources in the article; (3) responses to questions about the article or discussions about further expansion directions, etc. But you're right, SilkTork: every discussion is kind of a consensus-seeking discussion, so the line is a bit hard to draw. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are currently two plausible proposals on the table:
 * The "Tamzin proposal": limit the exception to nondisruptive edit requests and provide enforcement discretion for other nondisruptive talk page posts.
 * The "Levivich proposal": ECP all of the pages and make a WP:ERRORS-style central page where edit requests can go.
 * I think I prefer the Tamzin proposal because of the risk that the central ERRORS-like page will become a useless graveyard of edit requests that nobody looks at (like, literally 0). People tend to ERRORS because it's main page related, and even that isn't perfect. I can't imagine a page for edit requests for ECR'd topics from non-EC editors would work that well. That said, I take @Barkeep49's point seriously. Maybe we can submit this to an advisory community discussion? Perhaps a 7-day advisory straw-poll-with-comments on VPR, nonbinding but useful to arbs and more organized than the freeform statements here? I don't think we need a formal motion for this if there's a rough consensus of arbs that this isn't a bad idea. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The discretion of the status quo is why we're here. Just need to point that out. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's a big difference between enforcement discretion and ambiguity, although sometimes they show up in the same places. Currently, there's discretion with regard to new article creations: admins can choose whether or not to delete them (even though they are unambiguously violations — there's no ambiguity). There's ambiguity with regard to whether many kinds of contributions on talk pages count as "internal project discussions". The Tamzin proposal entirely removes the ambiguity, and replaces it in part (but not in whole) with enforcement discretion. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 13:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect to Andrean, I think he could and should have used discretion with respect to Ashvios edit and if he had we wouldn't be here. So I think we are here because of enforcement discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am open to that, Kevin -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 12:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've just read that clause, and I'm not clear on what the intention is. A new editor may start a section and make constructive comments on an article talkpage, but not join an existing discussion, such as a RfC or RM, on the same article talkpage to make the same constructive comment? SilkTork (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like committees have see sawed here depending on what spurred them to take action. When it's a good faith editor being hindered from innocuous contributions ecr is loosened in some way. When a rash of socks have derailed discussion it's tightened. I wish we could split the difference with sensible enforcement but that might not be realistic. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish I appreciate your analysis and think you provide reasonable evidence for most of it. But I can't track what evidence you are offering for Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Barkeep49: I invented what we now know of as ECP to limit the influence of the rampant socking in the topic area. -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 11:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that which is why I wanted evidence from SFR it wasn't achieving its purpose. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish be that as it may, I am very skeptical of adding a large degree of new discretion and question the wisdom of trading the ambiguity of one thing for the ambiguity of what pages is it ok to let non ECR participate. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer Levivichs solution to Tamzins as it promote a consistent place to direct people reverted. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I again want to note my agreement with Levivich. It's important for us to implement something that can cleanly and easily, ideally automatically, enforced. This is not only better in terms of editor time saved and conversations we don't want disrupted kept freer of disruption but it's a better experience for the non-ECR editor. We can more carefully tailor the experience they have in a way that is respectful for them and doesn't set a false expectation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that I really don't like these preemptive ECP restrictions in general - too much of a "gotcha" for new editors who wouldn't know about these restrictions and are reverted for the sake of reverting them. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at this, I'm actually surprised it has taken this long to get here. It does seem there is some vagueness here that leaves things a little too open to interpretation. Not sold on what the solution is yet, but we probably need to re-word a few things. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing how EC user group works is not feasible from the technical perspective, from the last time or three that was broached IIRC. Izno (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per GN, our setup should make it easier to do than to accidentally transgress. Cabayi (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When I invented the 500/30 rule, I never thought that I would cause every project getting a new protection level or this much consternation. Tamzin's change is in line with how I would split the hair. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest an arb who favors the "Tamzin proposal" put forth language and see if we can pass something as that seems to have slightly more support than the language I prefer. It is not helpful to have this hanging in such an active area. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, if you prefer to put forward wording for Levivich's solution, I think I would be likely to get behind that as something easy to manage, and more flexible and potentially less disruptive for the new editor. That there is a place where they can safely make a suggestion or comment, and that place can be monitored, seems more straightforward than allowing a new editor to say one thing on a talk page, but if they say something else it may get removed. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Edit requests only

 * Enacted - KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Support (Edit requests only)

 * 1) This answers the question asked of us and provides a clear and narrow exception for non-ECR participation that should hopefully eliminate the ambiguity around internal discussions. I would also be in favor of a motion empowering and directing the clerks to draft a template that we could place on the talk pages of users who are non-ECR explanining the restriction in a manner similar to Contentious topics/alert/first but rewritten for the ECR context. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps while we are here, edit requests should point to WP:EDITXY as an example of the basic expectations for an edit request. Izno (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. . Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that Contentious topics/alert/first already has some code if a topic is ECR. Here's my sandbox for what the /first alert could look like for ECR (basically adds some extra information and visibility for the ECR restriction). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. If this passes, can we consider making an editnotice and/or banner that would inform users, especially non-EC users, that they are not to use the talk page except to make edit requests, as well as the template Barkeep suggests above? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (Of course, yes) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) But I have to say I hate the psudo diff using strike throughs. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Primefac (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) — Wug·a·po·des 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) As a first step toward clarifying the expectations in the area. Izno (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion (Edit requests only)

 * @Barkeep49 @Guerillero in Special:Diff/1183481416 I added "only" to this motion; please revert if you disagree. See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The central meaning says the same -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocks should only be on the enforcement menu when the user has previously been given notice of the topic's CT designation and the new article's subject clearly falls within that designation. Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cabayi that's covered by the standard CT procedure and doesn't address the issue we've been asked for clarification on here. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, clarification request

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GoodDay at 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive307

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


 * I've pinged both editors. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
Concerning my Gensex topic-ban, am I allowed to contact editors & ? One of them pinged me, months ago & I wasn't certain if I was allowed to respond. Though there is no formal one-way or two-way bans between myself & them, I'd rather be certain about this. Communication, helps heal past differences. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

, your opinion would be appreciated, as the administrator who imposed the Gensex ban-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

the nature of such contact between myself & the other two editors, would be of any topic accept Gensex. All the more so, as two of us are currently banned from that topic. However, we're bound to meet each other on talkpages of other topics & so should we have content disagreements (examples: at an RM or RFC) or agreements? It would be helpful if we're allowed to communicate with each other, including directly on our own talkpages. It's been well over a year & I think it's time to lower the barriers. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th (GoodDay)
For the most part I've avoided interacting directly with GoodDay, outside of two of his appeals against the sanction at AE. Though I've not really given it much thought when doing so, as contribs from him only occasionally appear on my watchlist. As long as it's not about GENSEX content, as I wouldn't want to see GoodDay breaching his TBAN, I don't have any particular issues with being in contact anywhere on wiki that where he thinks it would be helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
I've not been here much, I just moved to the Philippines 20 days ago and that has been a full time job, so I'm not as up with things as I could be (which is why I temporarily handed in my admin bit). I can only say that I think GoodDay has good intentions, but then again, the road to hell is paved with them. Still, good intentions are a good start. My natural tendency is to give a little rope if there aren't objections. I don't personally have any objections, but my opinions shouldn't be used as a final determination, due to the lack of involvement lately. In a nutshell, if I must get off the fence, I would lean slightly towards lifting restrictions a bit. I think GoodDay understands that if the restrictions have to be put back into place, it will be a cold day in Hell before they would get lifted again, and that might be enough to make him think before hitting the "publish" button. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 05:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * KevinL is correct, it wasn't a sanction, it was a warning that they would be monitored, and if contact became problematic, stronger measures would be taken instantly, without the benefit of an AE report. If it helps, I will withdraw that request, although I think it may still be good advice.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 05:50, 18 November 2023 (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.

GoodDay, clarification request: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I want to hear from (and any of the other admin who participated in that discussion) but  what would an example be of the kinds of contact you'd want to do? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the notion of "Communication helps heal past differences". At the moment you don't have an interaction ban with Sideswipe9th or Newimpartial, though advised you three to stay away from each other. I'd say that if Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial, who have been pinged, come here and say they'd be OK with contact, then you're likely to be OK talking with them. However, if they don't respond here, then I feel you can take that as they would not be in favour, and you have your answer. SilkTork (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As a matter of what can be formally answered by ArbCom at a clarification request, non-GENSEX-related contact isn't covered by any formal sanction as far as I can tell. I think you're also asking us whether it would be a good idea to do so, but I don't think that's an answer we are structurally positioned to give as a committee. I would therefore vote to close the clarification request without a further formal clarification. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement being clarified here is an official close of an AE thread. I think it's absolutely reasonable for GoodDay to make sure he's not going to be summarily blocked or otherwise sanctioned if he started engaging and because it's an AE thread I think this is an appropriate venue to seek clarification. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I view it as nonbinding and not cause for a summary block. I would clarify that an administrator who treats it any more seriously than guidance, who relies on it to make a summary block, would be exceeding the bounds of their discretion. (Guidance can be a factor in whether to block, of course, but it is not an enforceable, logged restriction.) Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That, rather than nothing which is what I understand you to be proposing, is how I think we should close this. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I didn't realize there was real confusion about whether the is any more binding than a request by an admin dropped on a talk page. It's not, and I'm happy for us to formally clarify that. What I won't do is clarify that it is, or is not, a good idea to resume contact. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Absent objection from an arbitrator, in accordance with, I will close this discussion with the result that the is not a formal enforceable sanction. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Twsabin unblocked (now Alalch E.)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Alalch E. at 22:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "Twsabin [now Alalch E. after a username change] is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed."


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * "Twsabin [now Alalch E. after a username change] is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed."
 * The request is to lift my (Alalch E., formerly Twsabin) topic ban

Statement by Alalch E.
On November 23, 2022 I appealed this CU block via email, and was unblocked with the restriction in the form of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed.

When I began making edits to Wikipedia as User:Alalch Emis (a now-inactive account) I did this in the American politics topic area, after the January 6 attack. I was very interested in how Wikipedia would cover this event, and the idea that I have something to say on the Jan 6 article's talk page was the immediate cause of my joining the project (starting this RM was one of my first edits; I was convinced that the descriptor used should be "insurrection"). I imposed myself on this talk page and overstepped by clerking an RM (another, subsequent, RM; during that RM I was convinced that the descriptor should not be "riot"). The degree and mode of my disruption was outrageous. It involved editing a highly questionable tally and refactoring discussions in unacceptable ways such as by moving comments around. Starting this AN report in furtherance of my misguided ations was terrible. "Imposing and overstepping". In hindsight, "manic" (I use this word in referene to this). I could not understand it well then, but I can understand it just fine now. If I had recognized and addressed those tendencies then (a failure to do that at the time can be seen here) I would not have been exhibiting them during the XRV discussions either, and so I would not have caused disruption there either. I said during that time that I would not "do anything out of the most ordinary" (in this discussion [BTW, sorry Drmies, I retract that part about you]). I failed to live up to that assurance (See the block which followed that, issued after this non-constructive RfC [Chrisahn and Moncrief were right to have concerns and I was clearly in the wrong in starting that RfC]). After the block expired, at which time a number of editors had become aware that I am someone who can cause disruption in this area, I made certain contested edits leading to an ANI discussion. Already at that time it was apparent that my mere presence in said area can lead to concerns and friction. Some time later, after having been indeffed, I made edits to an American politics article using my block-evasion sock, leading to worries about the integrity of the QAnon article's GAN, and at that point the only reasonable conclusion could have been that I should be banned from this area. This is how I understand my topic ban. The Arbitration Committee did not explain the reason for the topic ban, but I never felt like that's something that needs to be explained to me, and when I was informed that I am ublocked with this restriction, that seemed very sensible.

In my unblock request to Arbcom, I commited never to sock again, never to deceive such as by making false statements and lightly given assurances, never to clerk talk pages and bludgeon discussions again or do odd things relating to processes, and I commited to be responsive on my talk page. These commitments were meant as commitments not to repeat such behaviors in general and in specific—with respect to post-1992 American politics in particular. I have stayed true to them and have functioned okay as an editor after being unblocked.

The topic ban is not necessary anymore. I will not repeat these old behaviors, not in this topic area or any other area of the project. As an illustration of the change in the pattern, the percentage of my edits to article talk pages has dropped from 27.4% on the blocked account, to 8.6% on this account. These former behaviors are not tied to some partisan inclinations or fervent real-world interests. They were tied to patterns of disruptive editing of the generalized type, which I have overcome. I think that enough time has passed since 2021 that anyone being alarmed by my occasional edits to American politics articles is of negligible likelihood. I have edited articles about other contentious topics such as the Arab–Israeli conflict, and have encountered editors who have known me since the disruptive period, and I could not sense a negative atmosphere, an air of concernedness, attached to my edits, at all.

If I am unbanned, there will probably not be any noteworthy contributions from me in the American politics area. I have avoided it during my ban, and I will keep avoiding it after I am unbanned. In this sense, my unbanning could be seen as a net netural. But I think that it would be a slight net positive.

My editing is not centered on any particular topic area, I am now a new page reviewer and I interact with the full range of topics, and I comment in forums such as Deletion review and MfD. I constantly think about not violating my topic ban. It's pretty often that I have to stop and think very hard if there are meaningful links between a random article or a random discussion and more recent American politics, which could activate the "broadly construed" part of my ban. I get that this is the mechanism which makes topic bans work. This is something that I respect and can deal with, but it is not necessary that I have to keep dealing with it. If I make a sporadic edit to an American politics article, participate in an MfD about a random page with this type of content, review or draftify such an article, nothing bad is realistically going to happen, as long as my editing is fine, and I promise that it will stay that way.

Because I had appealed my CU block to Arbcom, I never had a chance to apologize to the community directly: I am deeply sorry for the past disruption.

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.

Twsabin unblocked (now Alalch E.): Clerk notes

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



Twsabin unblocked (now Alalch E.): Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If there's no real community feedback/opposition to this I'm inclined to grant, especially because any uninvovled admin could reinstate the tban under the Contentious Topic procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Barkeep. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, absent any reasonable objection, this seems an acceptable request. SilkTork (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Alalch E.'s topic ban rescinded

 * Support
 * 1) Per above. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Izno (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) SilkTork (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Primefac (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Alalch has behaved reasonably from I've seen of them post unblock, and given this appeal I am willing to lift this restriction. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Per above. — Wug·a·po·des 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator discussion
 * Proposed. Will hold off voting for another little bit, but I intend to support absent objection. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request: ECR edit warnings for non-XC users

 * Original discussion

Initiated by CommunityNotesContributor at 23:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Extended confirmed restriction to contentious topics

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 CommunityNotesContributor
I am requesting that a warning on the edit page of WP:ECR contentious topics to be included for clarification to non-WP:XC users.

Currently non-XC users are only warned that the page is semi-protected upon editing, and therefore liable to receive the contentious topics alert template by making such available edits to pages. Additionally, talk pages do not specify any extended confirmation restrictions either.

My suggestion for clarification:

Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse. ---> This should read that the page is restricted to extended confirmed users, not just semi-protected
 * Update the edit warning from semi-protected to ECR for such topics, currently the note says:

---> This should also include the extended confirmed restriction that applies to the topic
 * Update the talk pages of ECR topics to reference the topic as ECR, currently the note says:
 * Note: The article ***, along with other pages relating to the ***, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
 * Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)
 * Following WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, editors on this page can only revert once in 24 hours

The ECR link to the contentious topic template has been recently updated for further clarity, but I believe preventative measures are also necessary.

I believe this is specific to WP:CT/A-I that is ECR. The admin updates to the relevant pages hasn't been made yet.


 * I assume Arbitration_Committee would be as good a place as any, given the topic. This is the talk page of where WP:ECR redirects to. I can repost there if that sounds sensible and the issue can be closed here. I now realise this is less to do with arbcom clarification, and more to do with technical implementations, but wasn't sure where to post initially. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, it's been redirected to the clerks noticeboard.
 * (Case resolved) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As per comments, I have posted to here regarding clarity for alert usage. I wasn't previously aware of the following:
 * "This template must be used as a editnotice on pages that have active contentious topic restrictions."
 * Refrence: Template:Contentious_topics/page_restriction_editnotice
 * (TL:DR: I was suggesting a change that was already implemented) CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (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.

ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Clerk notes

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

ECR edit warnings for non-XC users: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * @CommunityNotesContributor: I'm sorry, I've read your request a couple times and am not understanding exactly what change you're asking us to make. For the first bullet, how would you like us to change the editnotice? For the second, I'm really having trouble parsing . Separately, I note that the clerks can approve changes to the templates after consulting ArbCom (see ), so absent objection from arbitrators, I will move this discussion to the clerks' noticeboard unless a clear need for the full Committee's action surfaces. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I haven't gotten around to closing this; would one of you mind closing and archiving? Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kevin, I believe this can be dealt with as a discussion about how best to implement notification of the ECR, which is a concern of the templates of interest and as such can be dealt with in conjunction with the clerks. (I am not really convinced there is a reasonable way to deal with this or any strong necessity to do so, but I'm happy to let others take the wheel. It would help if a specific article/talk page were cited as context for this discussion to take place.) Izno (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @CommunityNotesContributor, the clerks have a noticeboard which is an appropriate place to sort out implementation. That is WT:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Izno (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just noting that this conversation has spread to a few places. They went ot the clerks noticeboard and have now also begun discussing their desired change here which, if we wanted to do it, would ultimately require us to pass a motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Ireland article names

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (2009
 * 2) Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (2011)


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (2009
 * Project page's talk page not project page its self.


 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (2011)
 * Same as above.

Statement by Crouch, Swale
The likes of Template:IECOLL-talk and Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Ireland state that discussions relating to the Ireland articles must take place at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but should it not instead link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as the project's talk page not the project its self is where discussions for issues/improving articles generally take place. The current linking to the project page rather than its talk page is confusing and has lead to things like this given it suggests the project page and not the project talk page is the required location for discussion. Changing to say the project's talk page would save this confusion.
 * Many other discussions like AFD, ANI, AIV and SPI take place on the project page its self. Yes I know there may not have been many problems with the motion but clarifying it would be helpful and reduce confusion. Indeed perhaps we should just remove it like Scientology last year was removed.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find the original motion (though I did find the 2009 and 2011 ones) as well though I'm pretty sure when I was reading about this back around 2017 I found it. The question is where is the decision diff/archive today?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a prelude involvement. I have participated in a few discussions but I don't have intention to start any Ireland/ROI RM discussions and in any case I could do with the current restriction. As to rescinding the restrictions I weakly support doing so since it would further reduce confusion, on the other hand the restriction has been in place for so long and most discussion at least more recent will be at IECOLL's talk page rather than the article's talk page and it serves as a useful place to keep such discussions together but yes repealing it probably seems best.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Scolaire
I support 's proposal to return the discussions to the article talk pages. Fifteen years ago there was so much traffic at both Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland from people demanding or opposing name changes that it was impossible to get anything else discussed. Nowadays, there are only a few requests a year (one so far in 2023), and the discussions are short. I think that the requirement to discuss article names at IECOLL should be ended, and the notice at the top of the talk pages removed. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay
Perhaps it's time to retire WP:IECOLL. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
re: SilkTork. I've searched the post-2009 arbitration archives for "Wikpedia:WikiProject" and I've not found any other live remedies or amendments that direct comments to a WikiProject page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2023 (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.

Ireland article names: Clerk notes

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



Ireland article names: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This seems like an overly literal interpretation of the motion, and users seem to have understood that the talk page is where it is most appropriate to comment about the issue. You cite a discussion from 7 years ago&mdash;which appears to be the such case of mistaken use&mdash;which is not particularly convincing to me that this needs to change. I am further contemplating removal of the previous remedy; even though that talk page is being used for the purpose indicated in the remedy, I see nothing to suggest the discussions which took place there could not simply have taken place at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Izno (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can support Izno's idea as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussions at WP:IECOLL have been spaced out and reasonably short, indicating the possibility that discussions at the article talkpage would be equally spaced out and short. The advantage of holding the discussions on the article talkpage is that there is an easily accessible record of the discussions and their outcomes. I would assume those who watchlist IECOLL would also watchlist Republic of Ireland. If we remove the remedy then Crouch, Swale's query becomes moot; however, I wonder if it's worth checking to see if there are other remedies which point to a project page rather than a talkpage. It is somewhat of a trivial matter, however it would be more helpful to direct people to the appropriate spot. But only if it's actually easy to check and update any links. SilkTork (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf. SilkTork (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also open to retiring this restriction. Given his past difficulties, I ask Crouch, Swale to think long and hard about the benefits and drawbacks of editing in such a tense topic area if this is a prelude to his involvement --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Motion: Ireland article names - Required location of move discussions rescinded
Enacted - firefly  ( t · c ) 17:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Interesting that these were never documented anywhere like General_sanctions or on a case page anywhere. Anyway, support. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 06:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Primefac (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Abstain Discussion
 * Proposed. Izno (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Horn of Africa (December 2023)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by TomStar81 at 18:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) "This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee."


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


 * Information about amendment request
 * "This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee."
 * I am seeking clarification of this case as it relates to other cases concerning the middle east to determine how this should be interpreted as effecting northern regions within the framework of the existing Arbitration cases that have been ruled on to date.

Statement by TomStar81
When this case was initially heard there was some semblance of peace in the greater Horn of Africa region. Accordingly then, the case itself was understood by both me and others writing with regards to it as being the nations explicitly mentioned above, which lie to the west, south, and southeast as the greater Horn of Africa region. Now, however, we are beginning to get articles on military action such as those described at Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. These actions, and the base for them, lie to the North of the Horn of Africa - specifically the Red Sea and Yemen (at the moment), although the Gulf of Aden and or Saudi Arabia could eventually be drawn into this as well. Given that the ruling for the Horn of Africa arbitration case never explicitly took up the matter of the northern region of the Horn of Africa, I am seeking clarification from the committee as to whether or not the authorized discretionary sanctions may be reasonably construed as including the two major bodies of water (Red Sea and Gulf of Aden), and whether or not Yemen and Saudi Arabia could be reasonably construed under the current definition of the authorized sanctions as "adjoining areas". I point out that the committee already has ARBIA cases on which it has ruled, but to my knowledge the committee has never officially dictated what extent if any its ruling should be applied to adjoining bodies of water.
 * Weighing the two matters as they relate to the region, and taking into consideration the already existing WP:ARBPIA rulings which impact the middle east articles we have I would suggest that the committee approach the request by clarifying that for purposes of the HOA ruling, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are not to be considered part of the greater Horn of Africa ruling as these nations currently come more directly under the WP:ARBPIA ruling. This clarification would define the region as independent and as a result not covered by the Horn of Africa case. For the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, I would suggest clarifying that incidents related to these bodies of water - such as piracy in Somalia - may be designated as under the Horn of Africa case if the belligerents are from or based in one of the countries to which the HoA case applies, or designated as under ARBPIA if the belligerents are from or are based in one of the countries recognized as part of the Middle East (in this case, Yemen and Saudi Arabia). I would also clarify that while incidents on the Red Sea and/or Gulf of Aden may be reasonably construed to be under the jurisdiction of either ARBCOM case, admins should avoid preemptively attaching DS related tags to such articles unless there is a good reason to do so, and that in the event that both cases could be reasonably construed as applying to an article admins and editors should be encouraged to develop a consensus for which case a given page's CT topic designation should come under if a CT designation is judged to be needed. In the case of Somali piracy, for example, if the pirates are HoA and the Saudi Government secures there release, I'd defer to HoA since that would be the belligerent nation, but if a ship was attacked by Somali pirates and IDF forces fought them off, I'd me more incline to to lean toward ARBPIA for CT degination if it were judged needed. In the case of the example article (Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war), that seems more geared toward ARBPIA since the belligerents are based in Yemen, while the Maersk Alabama hijacking would be more geared toward HoA since that was entirely a result of action by Somali pirates. As for any disruption or edit warring in the region, I have seen none - yet - however I am concerned that Hamas's attack on October 7th and the resulting conflict in the region is causing more and more groups to commit either resources to the region for defense of personnel for military action. Since the committee has approximately 5 different cases that may be obtusely construed to apply here in some way, shape, or form (HoA, ARBPIA, Iran, India-Afganistan-Pakistan, & Islam) I feel it important to clarify which case for which region here and to provide guidance on how to approach naval actions related to these regions. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It works, at least for now. At a minimum it at least offer some level of clarity for the issue. I can live with it, although as the situation develops it may need to be looked at again, but we will cross those bridges when and if we get to them. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do it. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:34, 19 December 2023 (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.

Horn of Africa: Clerk notes

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



Horn of Africa: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * For me, piracy off of Somolia would clearly be covered by this contentious topic scope. So some expansion into waters feels well with-in the scope. Yemen/Saudi Arbaia feels outside of the scope in the abstract but I reserve the right to feel differently in a specific situation where more factors can be considered. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Barkeep. Izno (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Barkeep. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * TomStar81, as you drew the Committee's attention to the disruption in 2020, and through your knowledge and experience of the area and the disruption, pretty much defined the scope, I think I'd like to be advised by you as to where you feel the scope should currently lie. As you seeing disruption or inappropriate editing in some of the northern regions? Could you point us to some of the concerns you have? SilkTork (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response User:TomStar81, and sorry that this clarification request has gone a little cold. I think all Arbs have been focused on the recently closed case. It appears to me, for simplicity's sake, that Barkkeep's response is the one you were looking for, and there's been agreement by other other Arbs, and I'll put my mark against that as well. Would that satisfy your request, or do you feel that something further needs to be done? SilkTork (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So, we're OK for closing this clarification, TomStar81? SilkTork (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland (January 2024)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 03:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland


 * 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/Antisemitism in Poland
 * Change "Polish" and "Poland" to "Polish or Lituanian" and "Poland or Lithuania", respectively.


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland
 * Change both ocurrences of "Poland" to "Poland or Lithuania"

Statement by SMcCandlish (on Antisemitism in Poland → Lithuania)
Alternatively, change the scope more broadly to "Eastern Europe" and "Eastern European" so we don't have to do this again for another country in a month or a year.Rather than name specific parties and pile up a bunch of diffs of individual naughtiness, it is more instructive for ArbCom to simply skim this ongoing ANI thread (permanlink).The short version is that all of the disruptive behavior types that swirled around the subject area of Nazis in Poland, Polish Nazi collaboration, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust in Poland, and Poland's roles in WWII have simply jumped ship one country over, to Lithuania. (Indeed, one of the regular participants in the LT disruption is especially noted for their intense interest in the now-WP:CTOP PL subject area). While the ANI thread is focused on two individual editors, the underlying issues, including difficulty in establishing which sources are reliable (many of them not being in English), adhere also to the Lithuanian branch of this, well, set of subjects. Even if both of the parties alluded to were topic-banned or blocked, it is clear that others would simply take their place.I suggested in the middle of that ANI thread that an ARCA to just extend the scope of the existing WP:ARBAPL case to cover LT would be the best solution, since ANI was clearly not equipped to deal with it, but all the "machinery" is already in place for PL and easily extended for LT (or even Eastern Europe generally). This idea was met with a lot of support, but no one wanted to open the ARCA request, so I got "volunteeered". :-)I think this amendment is the best outcome, because ANI's not going to fix this, the disruption level is high and intractable, the nature of problems within the dispute are essentially identical, and a new "WP:ARBALT" RfArb case would be time-consuming and redundant when this can be resolved by motion. Any continuing disruption in the topic area would be quickly soluble by admins with CTOP at their disposal, as it has been working for the Polish variants of these editorial conflicts.PS: If I'm to name some specific parties and go diff-farming, I can do so, but it would be a depressing slog, and what's already diffed in the ANI is probably sufficient, as to the two most-disputatious present editors in the subject. I think it would be more long-term useful to CTOP the subject than to pillory two particular disruptors who would not be able to continue being disruptive for long under CTOP. PPS: I have no involvement in the topic area at all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49's user-talk thread is interesting. I hadn't really considered an amendment to the WP:ARBEE case instead, just because this all seemed so bound up in Nazis and the Holocaust in particular. That said, given the nature of the subject matter, the more stringent sourcing requirements of WP:ARBAPL are probably worth imposing for LT anyway for the same reasons as for PL. As for ArbCom acting as AE, I don't spend a lot of time in these haunts, but trust that the issues in the subject area will get dealt with one way or another. Aside: A couple of folks at ANI have also suggested just having anti-Semitism in general be the scope of ARBAPL, or being its own CTOP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Re, I'm reluctant for us to start naming parties and collecting diffs without a specific ask from a community member: In that case, I'm making the ask. I'd hoped to just get a quick scope-expansion motion and let AE or other CTOP admins deal with disruptive persons, but if two Arbs are already wanting to examine "as AE" those most-involved editors' behavior in particular, in lieu of or aside from the scope change, then I guess that's where we're going. Do I need to manually add parties and drop user-talk notices?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 08:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for specific other individuals of course, but I think the rough answer to the restriction becomes meaningless if editors are disinclined to seek enforcement .... puzzled as why Marcelus went to ANI rather than returning to AE, is that the overlapping scopes of various CTOP things and other cases are not always clear to everyone. E.g., I've been here 18 years but didn't think to propose this as an ARBEE amendment or consider that EE in general might be inclusive enough of this already, because a more specific PL case was particularly about Nazis and anti-Semitism. I.e., it seemed like the Nazi stuff had to be in Poland to be covered by CTOP. Anyway, if more stringent sourcing restrictions are ported from PL to LT, the regulars in the latter topic are likely to figure it out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I was thinking of adding [RS consensus required] just for EE" makes sense to me, and should resolve the "they'll just move one more country over" problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with your take on Pofka's input here (though I am not a subject-matter expert, abusing ARCA to advance a PoV like this is clearly wrongheadeded). Part of my goal in opening this ARCA with a scope-expansion or other remedy-applicabilty change request, without naming specific parties and diff-digging into per-editor specifics to seek topic bans or other such remedies regarding specific persons, is that AE itself would be able to routinely handle any future problems of this sort, as long as it's clear that the subject is under one or more scopes to which AE remedies are applicable. That would be more efficient than ArbCom cases about individuals' behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Extraordinary Writ
ArbCom taking this up as an AE matter would probably be a good idea. It attracted very little admin attention when it last came up at AE ( and I were the only sysops to comment in detail over the three weeks the request was open), no doubt because slogging through all this is not anyone's idea of fun. We issued a logged warning for some fairly clear-cut overpersonalization, but I can't help but think we only scratched the surface, and the dispute continues to fester. A full case might be useful in getting to the bottom of all this, as it was in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 earlier this year; to be honest, though, I'm increasingly wondering if it wouldn't be better to just topic-ban all the leading disputants for consistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that's wasted an inordinate amount of the community's time. I don't believe heightening the sourcing requirements or imposing an ECR would resolve what is at bottom an interpersonal disagreement among a handful of editors. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Ostalgia
So as to not leave OP in the lurch after several of us expressed support for opening this case (we sort-of coaxed him into it), I'll drop my 2 cents here. The ANI thread is tainted by a history of problems between two users and by the constant casting of aspersions, but this should not obscure the fact that issues with editing topics relating to WWII, collaborationism, antisemitism and the Holocaust are not limited to Poland (nor is it limited to Lithuania either - I do not remember the exact details but earlier this year we had a RM that would have removed references to the SS from the title of an article on one of the "national" SS divisions, which is problematic). I do not mean to imply that the user reported at ANI was actively engaged in the intentional whitewashing of figures with a checkered past, but it is undeniable that many national historiographies in the region have engaged in revisionism, and this eventually trickles down to Wikipedia, with or without ill intent on the part of individual editors. This is especially true of the more "niche" areas, where knowledge of less popular languages is required and only a minority of users work. Having source restrictions and more community/administrative oversight over the area would be welcome. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Just mentioning that I, too, would be more satisfied with a wider net being cast, covering all of EE. I am not hinting at the possibility of country-hopping so much as to the possibility of new actors "organically" popping up in EE countries pushing some revisionist positions. Ostalgia (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and the recent intervention by Pofka shows exactly why this amendment is needed. Ostalgia (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged, I will respond. This is not a noticeboard so I have no intention of engaging in a discussion with Pofka, but I feel some things have to be clarified. The basic premise of his message is off. The (pre-war) Norwegian government did not collaborate with the Germans, but Vidkun Quisling's government did, and we have (understandably, I'd say) written about it, and even have an individual article documenting this collaboration. I feel like Pofka's entire post is, again, an exercise in excluding from history those episodes in the Lithuanian past that can be considered distasteful. The allegation of such behaviour (on the part of another user) is quite literally what started this entire mess (NB: once again, this is not something exclusive to Lithuania).
 * While this is not a content dispute, I feel I also have to address the overall portrayal of the period painted by Pofka. I do not think anyone claims interwar Lithuania was an officially antisemitic state, but the very fact that Smetona's opponents nicknamed him the "King of the Jews" in an attempt to tarnish his reputation only shows that a) his rivals were more openly antisemitic and b) there was a societal stigma tied to associating with the Jews that they sought to exploit. But it was not only an issue with opponents of the ruling regime. Allow me to add a few excerpts from a recent (2019) UCLA dissertation that illustrate how the situation of the Jews before the war was far from being as rosy as portrayed by Pofka:


 * "Smetona disbanded the parliament, filled the government with members of his own ethnic nationalist party (and members of his own family), oversaw the production of two new constitutions that concentrated power in his hands and cultivated an autocratic position that asked Jews to trust in him alone. Concomitantly, institutions from the police to the university became increasingly corrupt and nepotistic, often at the expense of Jewish inclusion. [...] The 1930s saw an increase in nationwide strikes, the rise of a state-sanctioned anti-Jewish business association and the right-wing radicalization of institutions such as the army and sporting clubs." (p. 13)
 * "Smetona, and his party, the Nationalist Union, developed a relationship with the Jewish community based around the desire for political stability but also demands for loyalty that evoked a medieval dynamic. [...] Smetona’s government replaced the rhetoric about Jewish inclusion in a multiethnic national project – which was frequently made with reference to the medieval charter that legalized Jewish settlement in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – with a rhetoric that emphasized the conditional nature of the Jewish place in Lithuania." (p.122)
 * "For Smetona, Poles were still assimilable to Lithuanianness, while Jews’ national trajectory was parallel." (p. 179)
 * "Many observers were especially disturbed by Smetona’s dismissal of the Paris Declaration. The Paris Declaration of 1919, as a result of the diplomatic efforts of Augustinas Voldemaras and Shimshon Rosenbaum, stated that Lithuanian Jews would have full political and national rights, rights of citizenship, rights to participate in governmental institutions, a Ministry of Jewish Affairs, proportional representation, rights to use their language in the public sphere, protection from not working on Saturdays, and cultural autonomy, all to be outlined in the Constitution." (p. 180)
 * "Violence did break out on the streets of Slobodka in the wake of the anti-fascist protests. Several historians have noted the pogroms in passing, and details of the August 2 [1929] events vary. According to police depositions, three young Jews walking home from a movie theater, close to midnight, were harassed in the street by some unknown, armed Lithuanians, instigating a brawl, and bystanders’ phone calls to the police couldn’t get through. Jewish volunteer firefighters came out in uniform to keep order, but the unrest spread until twenty-seven Jews were injured, including some women and an elderly functionary of the Slobodka chevra kadisha. Jews contended that when police finally arrived, they did not stop the attacks." (pp. 196-197)
 * "Denials from the police and other government officials were swift. [...] Trimitas, for its part, mounted a spirited defense, claiming that 'such excesses, from the Lithuanian side, against Jews, were not done.' [...] But it was [prime minister Augustinas] Voldemaras’s denial of a pogrom, in both the international and local press, that was the greatest blow to Jews’ confidence in the regime to protect them. Voldemaras told the Jewish representatives who came to him, 'Attacks occurred, in truth, but not in the form of a pogrom.' [...] The Lithuanian Legation at Paris, headed by Voldemaras, later claimed that Jewish Communists broke their own windows." (pp. 197-198) [NB: Voldemaras had grown apart from Smetona and was eventually removed from office]
 * "[I]n the 1930s, newspapers, academics, and institutions of power in Lithuania began to articulate 'discrimination against Jews along clearly racial lines.' Notions of Lithuanians’ racial purity were propagated by local eugenicists. This new racialization of Jewish otherness dovetailed with an uptick in economic anti-Semitism." (pp. 208-209)
 * "The government abetted the marginalization of Jewish businesses by enacting laws, in 1932, that prohibited the use of all languages besides Lithuanian in business dealings, among other measures targeted at Jewish cooperatives. President Smetona’s tendency to prevaricate on the topic of anti-Semitism gave room for these anti-social ideas to thrive. In 1934, for example, Smetona said, 'After all, Jews since ancient times have avoided mixing in among themselves foreign blood, however we do not call them racists. Germans, who for a long time happily assimilated Jews, suddenly shut them out and strongly try to get rid of the influence of Semites, like in various times: they are racists.'" (p. 231)
 * "In October [of 1936], the leaders of the army, Generals Stasys Raštikis and Jonas Černius, submitted a report to Smetona warning that Jews were overrepresented in local Communist organizations, adding, 'Something is wrong with the Jewish community.'" (p. 251)


 * I had not previously expressed myself in favour of sanctions for any users here or at ANI, but at this point I cannot help but concur with @City of Silver in regards to Pofka's capacity to edit in and around this topic area. Whether through ill will or WP:CIR I believe he is pushing a sanitised view of his country's history that does a disservice to the encyclopedia. I also think I have probably trampled over any word limits with this message, but I hope some leeway can be (retroactively) granted seeing as I was pinged and I was asked for "receipts". One way or the other, I think this concludes my participation here unless an arb wants to ask me something. For other stuff, my TP is open. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Marcelus
In principle, I support the amendment. In my opinion, the main difference between the topics of anti-Semitism/collaboration in Lithuania and other countries with a similar situation (Poland, Ukraine, etc.) is that the number of users involved is very small. Thus, often any content dispute inevitably comes down to 1v1 or 1v2. If extending the clauses to Lithuania will help attract more users and thus make it more efficient to find consensus, then by all means it's a good idea. I think the case of Talk:258th Lithuanian Police Battalion is a good example here, where a fairly simple change proposition was blocked by two users, but thanks to ANI an uninvolved user appeared and with his contribution  allowed a fairly simple and essentially uncontroversial change to be made.Marcelus (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Barkeep49: I treated the first report as a comprehensive summary of the problem I had been observing for some time, the second as an "incident" related to the first, for this I decided that ANI was enough. Marcelus (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if this were to be extended beyond Poland and Lithuania, we should certainly cover all of EE (including Russia). But another approach should also be considered: should we impose these restrictions preventatively? I have edited the issues of collaboration and WWII crimes also in the context of Estonia, Belarus and Ukraine, and while there have been some problems, controversies, attempts at covering up, they have generally been managed with the regular tools (usually a discussion on t/p). Therefore, I believe that the mere potential controversiality of topics should not be the basis for preemptive solutions. One should believe in the established process of resolving conflicts and problems. Marcelus (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc
This might take this specific request off course a bit and is probably better done at WP:A/R/M but I wonder if your idea of including restrictions like this at WP:AC/PR might work as part of a wider approach. That is, rather than the consensus required and enforced BRD restirction being defined at WP:CTOP they have their own section at WP:AC/PR. The standard set list can just link to them at WP:AC/PR#Enforcement (as a delegation to enforcing admins) rather than needing to define them. This would also mean that ArbCom could apply them directly (per Barkeep's suggestion for reliable source consensus required) rather than needing to replicate the wording in a case remedy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose there is also a separate question of whether reliable source consensus required should be part of the standard set given its similarity to normal consensus required which is part of the standard set. This is probably a question for another time but will likely come up if my suggestion above is taken up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This all makes sense to me and feels worth exploring in the new year. Given that it's off topic here I'd ask that move it to a place like WT:Arbitration Committee or hold off for now. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Barkeep, I'll hold off until next year and create a section at WT:AC, if I remember. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's what I was going for in my second paragraph. I've adjusted the wording in my first paragraph to clear it up a bit. Currently the menu exists at WP:CTOP for single admins acting alone and a consensus of admins can do pretty much anything. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Another option is to make part of the standard set so admins can impose it on articles with issues wherever CTOPS is authorised. That is, the Committee can extend it to the current area of conflict (Lithuania) but it also becomes one of the standard tools admins can use. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not really that hefty when compared with ordinary consensus required which applies to everything all the time (including sources). Reliable sources consensus required is a limited-down version of ordinary consensus required that only applies to sources and only to sources that aren't peer reviewed. I agree that it would only work in some topic areas but the same applies to the other restictions that admins have discretion to choose between. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Poland/Lithuania)
After reading Callanecc's comments (which I admit to not fully understanding so this may be duplication) I'm wondering whether it would be worth ArbCom defining somewhere a menu (for want of better terms) of sanctions that are not included in CTOP areas by default but can be added (individually or in combination) in situations where they are required. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
I think SMcCandlish's idea of expanding this to Eastern Europe makes sense. This (by "this" I mean issues related to Lithuanian historiography, Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany (both missing articles, sigh, we just have Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany), discussed in academic works and media ex., Slate, NYT), is a recurring issue with long history on Wikipedia, with ArbCom dimensions traceable to 2000s (Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes etc.). Some folks try to minimize this, some folks try to (unduly?) stress it. Same old, same old... Similar issues can be found for other countries (Poland, of course, as well as Ukraine, Russia, Estonia, Latvia and well, all other countries in the region too), and we know how that ends (in painful improvement, measured in accounts banned, admin board threads in hundreds and arbcom cases in dozens :. Telling folks to use high quality sourcing for research in such controversial topics is a good practice that should be enforced for all controversial topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I just read Pofka's statement and I am flabbergasted. I can only echo what City of Silver and Ostalgia wrote about his comment(s) already in their statements and hope the committee notices this issue and takes appropriate action. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Barkeep49 Since the Committee topic banned MVBW for comments in the February-May case, the precedence seems relevant here, and as for the diffs, the statements here should do (not that I recall any diffs being cited for MVBW's tb). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Barkeep49 It's just a minor quibble, but didn't the two others editors I named mentioned the same specific editor with the same specific evidence? I thought I was just summarizing/endorsing what they said. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by City of Silver
SMcCandlish says they were "volunteered" for this task and that's putting it lightly; I don't think anybody badgered on this as shamelessly as I did. (I said, I'm going to do the thing where, since I don't have a clue how to make an amendment request at ARCA, I quietly wait in the hopes one of you does it before I give it a shot. Yikes.) I'm really grateful SMcCandlish did this since this request would have been a joke had I tried to go it alone. Obviously I fully support extending the CTOP designation to antisemitism in Poland and Lithuania. I said at ANI and still say that I'd also support extending the scope to antisemitism in Eastern Europe and to antisemitism, full stop.

I'm also requesting clarity regarding what needs to happen to put AE-style sanctions on the table. I have a message where I explicitly nam[e] specific editors and giv[e] an example of misconduct saved off-wiki and ready to go although I'd certainly defer to SMcCandlish or pretty much any other participant here.  City o f  Silver  04:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing how, as User:Barkeep49 said, to make an AE-style sanction request because as of now, antisemitism in Lithuania is not a contentious topic. Granted, if it were, I'd just go to AE so does that mean I should formulate a request based on the fact that a scope increase is likely to happen? For that matter, I'm looking at the message I have saved and since almost every diff I link goes to that ANI thread User:Barkeep49 has already read, I'm not sure why certain editors can't be dealt with there by an uninvolved administrator. It wouldn't be the first gigantic ANI thread to be closed with a long, detailed explanation accompanied by a ream of penalties.  City o f  Silver </b> 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Also! If, per User:In actu, this matter can be adjudicated under WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe, wouldn't such a decision render the CTOP designation of antisemitism in Poland (and any future such designations of antisemitism in Lithuania and/or antisemitism in Eastern Europe) redundant? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding "the (un)willingness of community members to present an "AE-style" ARCA for us," please see two messages up from this one, the one that starts "I'm not seeing how..." I asked for a bit of help regarding an AE-style request and questioned whether such a request is necessary for anyone who's read the ANI thread and I haven't gotten much guidance on either. I apologize that I'm asking questions more-experienced editors wouldn't have but I really am ready to fulfill that request the best I can. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Explicitly: two of Lithuania's most notable leaders during World War II, Juozas Ambrazevičius and Petras Polekauskas, were Nazi collaborators who took strong, deliberate efforts to kill massive numbers of Jews in accordance with the wishes of Hitler's Germany. Because User:Pofka knows that, they also know their message here is entirely, or almost entirely, a lie. (They've been on Wikipedia for a long time so they also know what they said blatantly violates the ARCA rule against content disputes.) By blatantly, disgracefully lying out of some misguided attempt to whitewash the history of extensive collaborations by Lithuanian leaders with Nazi butchers, lying in a way that practically begged other users to call them out, Pofka was kind enough to inform the committee that they cannot be trusted to edit literally anything related to Lithuania and should be topic banned from it as soon as possible. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 00:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki
I have no opinion on the underlying dispute other than that is a mess. I'd have to look in the allegations thoroughly to make any conclusion of misconduct one way or another. But the committee should by all means expand the scope to include neighbouring countries. The situation in Lithuania is easily very similar in other Baltic states, at the very least because they were under Reichskommissariat Ostland. The same goes for Belarus and Ukraine, as historiographical disputes are pretty clear and there is evidence of at least some degree of collaboration and antisemitic attitudes in the day. The real debate is about the degree this happened. For nationalist historians in the area, it barely happened with their nation or these people were not really "true members" of their nation; but it certainly happened to other nations to a much greater degree and also they oppressed our nation. It's heated, it's part of politics (look at all the institutes of national remembrance), it provokes chronic low-intensity interethnic tensions, and then there are the Jews, and as we know, the Holocaust and interplay between the locals and the Nazis is a very sensitive subject in Eastern Europe.

I respectfully submit that the scope of the motion (at least the reliable source restriction and AE enforcement, but probably more) be expanded to include history of WWII in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland and Ukraine (EDIT: and Russia to some extent, thinking about articles like Andrey Vlasov, his Russian Liberation Army or the Lokot Autonomy under Nazi occupation. Can't say about Romania, Bulgaria or Yugoslavia because I'm not intimately aware about their history, but I think anything related to the Independent State of Croatia or Ante Pavelić should be covered, if it isn't already). This is because it is very likely that doing it country-by-country would be a game of whack-a-mole and a drain on our resources. This should include any combination of ethnic relations between each of these nations, the Germans (Nazis), the Jews and the Romani (see Romani Holocaust).

EDIT: A full case is unnecessary, you can do that by motion. I think AE should be able to handle this for now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Andrevan
As a point of historical fact, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a single political entity at one point, so the extension to Lithuania is a no-brainer. I suspect nobody would much object to including Russia, Germany, and other similar locations from WWII, both of which have very identifiable antisemitism, and both have examples of people taking revisionist views of those events. I suggest the infinite regress problem created by extending this topic could be solved by creating an extension towards Antisemitism, period. It's not Eastern or Western Europe; the Spanish Inquisition or the Expulsion from England and other topics are equally CTOPic and happened in Western Europe, and there are similarly either Jewish-national or nouveau revisionist historians arguing about whether antisemitism was antisemitic or how bad was it in England or Spain. Just take my word for it that this is the case, though I can provide more on this later, but I'll have to do some research to provide the sources suitable for an article, and it's harder to research the 1200s and the 1400s than it is to research the 1840s or the 1940s. There was antisemitism that is debated in North Africa, as well as the Ottoman Empire. There are people who debate the relative impact, cost, the extent to which people were involved. In fact, I have a pertinent example that happened relatively recently at Talk:Maghrebi Jews where there was a heated disagreement about the extent of antisemitism in Algeria. Therefore, I propose broadening the CTOPic to Antisemitism broadly construed. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 06:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Pofka
I strictly oppose the equating of Poland and Lithuania in this case about Lithuania's alleged collaboration with Nazi Germany and antisemitism. The allegations of "Antisemitism in Lithuania" are not possible in Lithuania's case because the Republic of Lithuania (when Lithuania's statehood was restored with the Act of Independence of Lithuania in 1918) NEVER acted in an antisemitic way and was very tolerant towards Jewish people (there were Jewish military units, etc.), and NEVER collaborated with Nazi Germany. Actually, the Republic of Lithuania refused to collaborate with the Nazi Germany and was only blackmailed by Nazi Germany (e.g. 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania) and the Republic of Lithuania also refused to attack Poland together with Nazi Germany to recapture its historical capital Vilnius (which was previously occupied by Poland). So there was absolutely no collaboration of Lithuania (as a state) with the Nazi Germany and there was no antisemitism when the Republic of Lithuania was a functioning state (before its destruction by the Soviets and later Nazis). In comparison, Poland is totally different in this case regarding collaboration and antisemitism because part of the interwar high-ranking Polish officials (e.g. Roman Dmowski, a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland) were openly antisemites (well-known facts and verified with WP:RS). Moreover, Poland annexed Czechoslovak territories following the Munich Agreement in 1938 (also see: Polish–Czechoslovak border conflicts). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Nor Juozas Ambrazevičius, nor Petras Polekauskas were official leaders of Lithuania. Antanas Merkys is the last officially recognized leader of Lithuania (15 June 1940 – 17 June 1940). Anything that happened after Merkys resignation and until the Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania (1990) are not connected with the State of Lithuania (legally even the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic is not the State of Lithuania, same with the non-sovereign German occupied Lithuania because in 1990 the State of Lithuania was reestablished as a continuation of the interwar State of Lithuania, not Lithuanian SSR, etc.). The occupied State of Lithuania is not guilty for crimes which were committed by occupants and their collaborators in Lithuania's territory because it had absolutely no power to change anything, so many of the interwar State of Lithuania residents, including Litvaks, badly suffered from Holocaust, Soviet deportations to Siberia, etc. By the way, I'm not trying to deny that the Provisional Government of Lithuania and Lithuanian Activist Front collaborated with Nazi Germany (and some members of LAF indeed committed horrific crimes), but these are not officially recognized representatives of the State of Lithuania. So saying that the State of Lithuania (ruled by Merkys and earlier rulers) collaborated with Nazi Germany is in fact not correct, but there definitely were Lithuanian collaborators with Nazis who acted not as official representatives of the State of Lithuania. Do you have any WP:RS with evidence about Antanas Smetona/Antanas Merkys acts of collaboration with Nazis? Smetona was even nicknamed by his opponents as Jewish King due to his tolerant stance towards Jewish people, see: HERE. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Hi, could you please clarify what was wrong with my statement here? Do you personally separate the State of Lithuania (official policies of the state and its leaders and its laws) from the Lithuanian Nazi collaborators (a few thousands of World War 2 criminals) or simply put a joint guilt on both? The official position of pre-occupation State of Lithuania towards Jews was: "Smetoninėje Lietuvoje nebuvo išleistas nė vienas antižydiškas įstatymas, nė vienas ministras ar kitas aukštas pareigūnas neištarė, bent jau viešai, antižydiškos frazės." (English: In Smetona's Lithuania, not a single anti-Jewish law was passed, not a single minister or other high official uttered, at least publicly, an anti-Jewish phrase; scientific source, p. 69). Do you want to put guilt on the State of Lithuania for war criminals (e.g. Petras Polekauskas) who served NOT for the State of Lithuania, but for the Nazi Germany when sovereign State of Lithuania no longer existed? Such accusations would not comply with WP:NPOV. Such war criminal as Polekauskas is obviously already covered by restrictions per Nazi Germany (as its collaborator). So unless, @Ostalgia or any other user provides evidence with WP:RS how pre-occupation State of Lithuania (ruled by Presidents Antanas Smetona, Aleksandras Stulginskis, Kazys Grinius) acted in an anti-Jewish way by collaborating with Nazi Germany, we cannot proceed with conclusions that Lithuania collaborated with Nazi Germany and to put restrictions on all Lithuanian topics. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Elinruby
Uncertain of protocol or the status of the motion.

For consideration on whether the restriction should apply to EE: Talk:Russian Volunteer Corps. The current discussion at Talk:Azov Brigade may also be instructive, as well as the whole ugly page history there. I also agree with the mention of anything related to the Independent State of Croatia or Ante Pavelić As for Lithuania, as I see it WP:ONUS should have been sufficient but was never enforced.

To those afraid the problem will just move elsewhere: depending on how we define "the problem" it already is and has always been widespread in post-Soviet régimes. I can source that if need be.

I have been working the past few days on the Holocaust in Lithuania articles generally and will gladly answer any questions. More work remains to be done there however. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

PS-Antisemitism is also a good idea (separately) but it wasn't antisemitism that got us here in this case, but unsourced ethnic aspersions. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Re articles about pogroms in Lithuania, I am finding that some apparently reliable sources contradict one another, although not consistently on every event. I am just now coming to grips with the details but two examples would be 1) whether the Provisional Government of Lithuania and its sister organization Lithuanian Activist Front dissolved themselves or were dissolved, and 2) which specific units carried out the pogroms at Ninth Fort. There will likely be more, but it is slow going since a majority of the sources are dead links at the Internet Archive in other languages, that I can't access on some of my hardware. In hopes of resolving some of this, I request clarification about the RS status of the Polish and Lithuanian national archives and also about apparently unavailable books that are not online, and theoretically meet RS except that they source what may be extraordinary claims. And btw, I am only here in hopes of helping to put a lengthy dispute to rest, so if the committee would like me to buzz off back to Vichy I would be delighted to do so if I am not helping. Elinruby (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I planned to close up shop on Wikipedia for the new year. I am not going to meet my deadline but I am drawing a line under my recent very deep dive into Lithuania. I will try to write up something more coherent as I wind up and close all these tabs, but some thoughts in no particular order in case they are helpful:


 * First, our Holocaust articles have almost no coverage of Jewish partisans, daily life in the ghettos, or the massive losses in the area of Talmudic scholarship.
 * Our articles on the Holocaust in Poland are heavily sourced to travel and genealogy sites.
 * It is important to realize that there are AT LEAST five separate ethnic narratives about World War II in the Baltics, and at least three of them consider it a sign of bigotry to disagree with them.
 * Any effective discussion of actual issues will require a discussion of the historicity of anti-semitic tropes. I call one two three not it.
 * RSN has opined that the archivist of Lithuania is an unreliable source.
 * If I am not mistaken, the Holocaust in Poland case discussed a similar conclusion about the archives of Poland.
 * Much of the information in the area comes from KGB archives of interrogations under torture.
 * The history of calling Jews Bolshevists dates back to the Russian Revolution and the history of the Soviets calling their opponents fascists is just as long.
 * Both and  are both right and wrong.
 * I do not want to file an AE complaint over the ANI thread because the editors I feel are badly mistaken are sincere in their beliefs and this is a systemic problem, although behaviour has compounded it.
 * There has unquestionably been editing based on ethnic beliefs. The editor whose name was dragged through the mud at ANI wasn't particularly responsible. He has changed his name now and who could blame him.
 * That that case could go on for six weeks based on zero evidence certainly convinced me that Wikipedia governance is completely broken.
 * I'm just glad I haven't yet had to chose between two murderous totalitarian regimes

I think that is enough to chew on for now. The short answer to the question City of Silver asked me at ANI: There is no question that at least some Lithuanians gleefully carried out pogroms. He's vastly oversimplifying the history, though.

There is also no question that the whole history is partially obscured by Soviet propaganda, which is true of all of Eastern Europe btw. " Limiting the case to Antisemitism in Lithuania will probably lead to random and ineffective sanctions again.

I still think the scope should be Eastern Europe and anything less will give disinformation an even freer rein than it already has now. I respect a desire to be conservative about unintended effects but Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have very similar histories in this period and are in general grouped together in sources, and Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine are inextricably part of the historiography in question.

If not Eastern Europe, my recommended scope would be then be the territory of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which would still include some of the most pertinent areas such as Kiev. I seem to currently be the only editor in the topic area, so there is no fire that needs to be put out. I recommend that Committee members take their time and take a good look at the regional history before doing anything Elinruby (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It does not appear that anyone has directly answered me so I cleaned up some typos in the above statement. Eyesight is getting worse, sorry. If I were someone reading my statement and it contradicted my long-held beliefs about the topic and could not or did not want to look into it myself, I would probably want to see sources. But that doesn't seem appropriate for the venue. Perhaps I should consult with and sketch out that historiography article. Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal
Can the arbitrators clarify what an article published by a reputable institution would mean?

For example, some editors would argue that on transgender topics, the BBC and The Guardian (UK) are not reputable institutions. Similarly, some editors would argue that on Arab–Israeli conflict topics, Al Jazeera is not a reputable institution.

None of these will be immediately relevant to the restriction but they may be in the future, and there are likely to be others that are of immediate relevance to the restriction. 05:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by North8000
IMO this type of restriction has lots of downsides but this is a rare case it is a good idea. The down side is that unreliable sources often meet the wp:RS criteria and vice versa, doubly so in context. But despite this I think that RSN does a pretty good job at determining actual reliability in context. What makes this area a better candidate than a typical contentious topic article is that it is a historical topic where there is higher hope for resolution by objective expert sources. Also being a rare special case means it won't deluge RSN. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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



Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Having been asked about this request previously I have skimmed the ANI thread (as SMcCandlish suggests arbs do). I find it a mess and think we should seriously consider serving as as an AE body, per Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland should there be a request about any specific editors which this request goes to some length to not do. Since this request just asks us to change the scope of some restrictions, to which I am also open, I'm going to have to really read not just skim to see if there is enough evidence there to suggest it appropriate to widen these pretty severe and unusual restrictions rather than deal with editor misconduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * normally ARCA will only consider editor conduct sanctions in limited circumstances, with the expectation that most behavior is handled at AE and then ArbCom listens to appeals from AE. For this topic area, however, we have said editors can come direct to us instead of AE. And while I am very open to doing that in resposne to that ANI thread, I'm reluctant for us to start naming parties and collecting diffs without a specific ask from a community member. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely get that @SMcCandlish filed this with the hope to just get a scope change. And that's fine. Absent someone (SMcCandlish, @Extraordinary Writ, @Ostalgia, or someone else) naming specific editors and giving an example of misconduct, along the lines of what we expect when, that's all I'm prepared to consider. Based on my skim of the ANI thread, I am in agreement with Guerillero that acting as AE for a couple of editors and possibly a contentious topic restriction scope change rather than a case, or mini-case, feels appropriate. I hope to be able to fully read the ANI thread today, tomorrow at the latest, and assuming there is enough evidence there for some kind of restriction expansion (rather than just misconduct of 2 or 3 editors) offer a motion to do that. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * to ask for sanctions against another editor I'd want to see evidence of the kind that . Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus what do you mean by ? Because I've been really upfront that I'm open to dealing with user conduct at this moment. But I've been met by collective unwillingness of anyone to actually say "I think this user should be sanctioned because of XYZ and here is proof of that (diff 1, diff 2)". If no one is willing to do more that step it says to me that maybe the conduct isn't as bad as I think it is because outside of extraordinary circumstances, which I don't think this is, I don't believe ArbCom should be the one producing that kind of evidence ourselves. You, in general, are someone who doesn't like to see users sanctioned so I'm genuinely curious what notice and appropriate action you're thinking of. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm open to ArbCom acting as AE in this case. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would take some creative reading of the request, but I am also open to having the committee act as AE to enforce WP:ARBEE. I am much less open to opening Eastern Europe 8 when there are 12 days left before new arbs come on. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have now finished reading the ANI thread. I am reasonably convinced that the sorts of issues that caused the Article Sourcing expectations for Poland also exist for Lithuania. So I will go ahead and propose, below, a motion to do just that. However, I just don't understand the multiple editors who think that this solves the problems from that ANI thread. The truth is that evaluating misconduct of the type alleged in that ANI thread is hard, something ArbCom also said at at the HJP case this year. So I worry that we're in a situation where people are going "There's a problem here and we must do something. Extending an existing restriction is something". Is extending this justified? Obviously I think yes, else I wouldn't be proposing an amendment.But the restriction becomes meaningless if editors are disinclined to seek enforcement and ArbCom has done what we can think of to help with the problems people have identified with that. Perhaps more needs to be done. What's that more? I have no clue. But I do admit to being puzzled as why went to ANI rather than returning to AE where the editor they had complaints about,  had already received a final warning (and I think the two uninvolved admin did a reasonable job of addressing the complaint they had before them). Perhaps the answer to that would give some clue as to an answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Marcelus so essentially you went to ANI because you thought it would be simpler? If that's the case, I will speak bluntly and say that I hope you've learned otherwise from how this went. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, @Szmenderowiecki, and @City of Silver I appreciate the consistency with which you are saying "this should be about all of Eastern Europe not just Poland and Lithuania". I'm having to weigh that against the fact that changing our normal editing process is an extraordinary measure and extraordinary measure generally means I want more than editor assertions to know doing so is justified. I'm curious what other Arbs have to say about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal academically focused is just as important as reputable publisher. So major universities' presses are examples of what passes. Beyond that I think it unhelpful to clarify in the abstract. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus MVBW was a party to the case, so it should not have been a surprise that their conduct was being looked at and there were 7 diffs presented of the conduct in question. Until your post no one had named a specific editor with specific evidence at this request and as I noted HJP was an extraordinary situation which should not, in my opinion, become regular practice. Since you have now done so, we can certainly examine that conduct and I have just opened a request here on your behalf. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion: Reliable source consensus-required restriction

 * Enacted - &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Support (Reliable source consensus-required restriction)

 * 1) For the reasons I give above and below. I am choosing not to include EE as a place where admin can add it as an individual enforcement action because some arbs have indicated opposition to that and I don't want that to get in the way of what I see as strong evidence for including Lithuania. That could obviously be done as a seperate motion, building on the structure of this one. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Bearing in mind my thoughts around how this may not solve the full problem below. However I think this is worth doing regardless as the situation in Lithuania-related articles does seem to warrant it. firefly  ( t · c ) 12:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the above statements. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) As everyone said above and below - solves the problem for this situation and let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Still leaning toward expanding it further. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) With a decent amount of reluctance per Barkeep's initial comments on the subject. I feel like I have more (frustrated) things to say on this, but they all just lead me back to supporting it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) A reasonable solution. Maxim (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) I also think it would be reasonable to topic ban Pofka from Lithuania from 1939 to 1946. I am tempted to do it myself --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) This is a reasonable way to address many of the issues presented, and while it may or may not be enough to address them all, it is a reasonable step either way. - Aoidh (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Abstain (Reliable source consensus-required restriction)

 * 1) Recuse I have been involved in the topic area of Poland and the Holocaust, so I will not be participating in business associated with that. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Per below. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion (Motion:Reliable source consensus-required restriction)

 * Not putting up a voting section to allow for refinement of this motion first. It made no sense to me to add Lithuania to Poland at a case called Antisemitism in Poland and thus incorporating it instead into procedures and modifying EE. But I am open to other approaches that have the same outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern is whether this will be enough, or whether it will just make people move over to another country once more. As several people alluded to above, there is a lot of World War 2 history involving collaboration with Nazi Germany and complicity in the Holocaust that the countries involved would really rather everyone forgot about. I'm still mulling over the precise scope, but I'm seriously considering the possibility of the reliable-source restrictions applying to the topic of the Holocaust in the entirety of the ARBEE scope. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Callanecc's solution is a reasonable middle ground. -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 15:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not ready to expand it to all CTOPS at this point; it's a pretty hefty tool and I want more information on how it gets used before considering rolling it out to other topic areas. In particular, I don't think the focus on peer-reviewed academic studies and the like would be suitable in topic areas where new things keep happening (AMPOL comes to mind); they'd only really work in topic areas where the contentious stuff is in the past. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with GN. I think this changes our normal editing process in a way that other standard restrictions, such as consensus required, do not namely instead of detailing how to resolve disputes it details how to create the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of adding it just for EE -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 09:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am OK adding it as part of the enforcement options for admin with-in the topic area given the feedback here. In other words it doesn't automatically apply as in Poland (and Lithuania proposed) but could be added as appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be leery of allowing unilateral use by an admin given what we already generally think about the restriction (both its necessity and how some quantity of the community sees it as edging into content matters). You could maybe sell me on a consensus (probably not rough) of admins at AE, but at that point I think ARCA is as appropriate. Izno (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I more or less support the above proposed change. Not sure why we're calling it a '"reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.' when it is not obviously the case to me that you/we intend this to be a contentious topic restriction solely? (I anticipate it would not be applied outside some subset of our known CTopics, but if we want it to be a restriction solely in that context it should probably live in the CTopics procedure. ECR also is not worded this way.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izno (talk • contribs) 20:09, December 24, 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I was trying to adhere to existing wording as much as possible. I'm fine with our without that wording. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like there's general agreement that the appropriate way to resolve this ARCA, considering the (un)willingness of community members to present an "AE-style" ARCA for us, is to add the "reliable source consensus-required" restriction to the standard set available for ARBEE only. It would also be beneficial to adopt @Callanecc's suggestions. If another arb doesn't beat me to it, I intend to propose the ARBEE standard set motion this term and a new procedure section defining the terms (per Callanecc) next term. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 09:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure at all there is agreement among Arbs for EE. Leaving that aside, could the general changes Callanecc proposes to CTOP be done separately perhaps at ARM (where this would need to go anyway because of the change to procedures)? Barkeep49 (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's what I meant. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 10:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's where I'm at:
 * I think the mechanics of Barkeep49's motion around adding the reliable sourcing restriction to ARBPROC are sound.
 * I am less convinced that expanding to only Lithuania will solve the problem. I am happy to support it as we must not let perfect get in the way of progress, and I am sympathetic to the views of community members and Arb colleagues that the RS restriction is a significant change to standard editing practice. I fear however that given the immense complexity of the historical situation here trying to draw neat lines around the issue is going to be hard.
 * I think it would be good to propose an "add the RS restriction to the standard set for ARBEE" motion for voting as L235 mentions. firefly  ( t · c ) 12:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm probably an abstain on the current motion. I will propose two motions: one to add the standard set to ARBEE and one to more fully flesh out the set of restrictions at ARBPROC, both at A/R/M after this ARCA concludes. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It feels like adding it to the standard set at ARBEE could (should?) be done now at least in the interest of saving community attention. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree that we should do it now if possible. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request (Pofka)

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement :


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

ARCA diff 1, ARCA diff 2
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Statement by Piotrus
Copied from above I just read Pofka's statement and I am flabbergasted. I can only echo what City of Silver and Ostalgia wrote about his comment(s) already in their statements and hope the committee notices this issue and takes appropriate action. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Extraordinary Writ (Pofka)
You all may already already be aware of this, but just in case: Pofka was previously topic-banned from Poland and Lithuania, and the successful appeal (which I remember because I closed it) was largely on a WP:ROPE basis. It should only take a small amount of disruption to warrant reïnstating that topic ban, and when you add the conduct that led to a recent i-ban to the concerns here at ARCA, I suspect we're well above that threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Arbitrator Discussion concerning Pofka

 * I'm open to a topic ban, but would prefer a narrower Lithuania one rather than all of EE based on the evidence before us. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Primefac given the evidence presented by EW about the ROPE unban, I'd prefer not to so narrowly tailor it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am open to either a topic ban from Lithuania or a topic ban from Lithuania during World War II -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless the greater Lithuania topic area is shown to be a problem, a World-War-II-centred topic ban as Guerillero suggests is likely best. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, thank you; the topic ban on Lithuania should be reinstated. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reinstate the TBAN on Lithuania per EW. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reinstate Lithuania TBAN, this feels like a cut-and-dry solution. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was the admin who imposed the IBan EW refers to above. I remember that being an alternative to a topic ban but it was a close-run thing. I support a topic ban but we should be careful not to make it more onerous than would be imposed at AE. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TBAN from Lithuania. Do we want to TBAN from Poland while we're here, given the context of the first diff? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TBAN from Lithuania; given the discussion in the appeal it seems a reasonable result here. - Aoidh (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Amendment request: GiantSnowman (December 2023)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by GiantSnowman at 09:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


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


 * 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/GiantSnowman
 * The restrictions related to the use of rollback (and associated scripts/tools) is lifted.


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman
 * The restrictions related to the use of rollback (and associated scripts/tools) is lifted.

Statement by GiantSnowman
At my ArbCom case I was rightly admonished for incorrectly using rollback tools, inadvertently reverting valid edits when attempting to rollback vandalism. I have spent the past nearly 5 years manually checking and reverting vandalism instead, which is an onerous task and is now impacting on my ability to deal with socks (for example I have recently been collaborating with in dealing with ). I would therefore request that the restrictions related to rollback are lifted. I will only use rollback for clear vandalism/socks and I will endeavour to explain the reason for rollback in my edit summary (I say 'endeavour' is because, if I recall, that is only possible when using the mass rollback tool; if rollbacking individual edits a default edit summary is displayed instead).

Eventually I would like all restrictions formally lifted, although I intend to continue to abide by them indefinitely, and so welcome any general feedback on the same.


 * &#91;in response to SilkTork&#93; For that particular editor (long-time block evader, subject to multiple range blocks), I would rollback all edits for all new IPs per WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to SamX] So you admit adding unsourced content to a BLP? And then I sent you a non-templated message explaining why your behaviour was not acceptable? And your response was "Fair enough [...] Upon further reflection, I realize that my actions violated the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP"? I then found a source for the content myself and added it to the article? So what's the issue now? What communication issues were there? GiantSnowman 18:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * &#91;in response to SamX] You're raising concerns, 9 months later, that I didn't respond to a message on your talk page in which you had adequately dealt with the issues raised by my initial message? GiantSnowman 19:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to Barkeep49] Difficult one - see end of paragraph. Edits I might have rollbacked include e.g. this and this as clear vandalism, although I would probably have manually reverted even those. Edits I would not have rollbacked, despite also being clear vandalism, include this and this (as the 'height vandalism' is not always as obvious to third party editors). To be honest, having spent 5 years manually reverting vandalism, I would probably still do so, only using rollback for occasions where that is not practical. GiantSnowman 19:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to Sdrqaz] I think it would be helpful - for everyone, but including me - for you to give specific examples of alleged breaches, rather than just exceptionally vague comments. I have not knowingly or deliberately breached any restrictions, and such 'breaches' have not been raised with me prior to this discussion. GiantSnowman 14:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to Barkeep49] "with the exception of obvious vandalism" - if any of the 'breach' blocks are bad, please let me know. GiantSnowman 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to Sdrqaz] Of the three blocks you mention below, the first two both have three escalating warning notices (although not all from me, on the basis that it would be ludicrous for me to send a level 1 warning when other editors have sent level 3/4 and there is ongoing disruption), and the third was a block for edit warring despite warnings from multiple editors. I view all of them as being compliant with my restrictions, or at least within the spirit of them. Ignoring my restrictions, are any of those bad blocks? Of the two discussions linked to by Extraordinary Writ, the first one is from March 2019 (so nearly 5 years ago) and the second one is from June 2022 (18 months ago) and yes it was a bad block but done with good faith. GiantSnowman 11:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to Ser!] You did not ping me and I did not see your message on the article talk page. Accordingly, do not assume I was ignoring you or similar. WP:AGF applies. It is sorely lacking in this entire discussion. GiantSnowman 13:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to ToBeFree] to clarify what I meant by "I intend to continue to abide by them indefinitely" - I was merely attempting to reassure the community that any lifting of restrictions would not see a repeat of the conduct which saw them introduced in the first place... GiantSnowman 10:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * &#91;in response to Sdrqaz] Noted re:sockpuppetry, thank you for clarifying. GiantSnowman 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by SamX
I'd like to draw the committee's attention to this interaction I had with GiantSnowman in March this year. I came across this diff during recent changes patrol. I was able to verify the veracity of the information with a quick Google search and I saw a mention of the loan later in the article so I didn't bother adding a reference, instead making a quick copyedit. GiantSnowman then dropped a boilerplate warning on my talk page. It wasn't a templated warning, but it was generic and akin to uw-biog1, and GS added an identical warning to the talk page of the IP that made the original edit. When I asked for clarification, his reply was curt and dismissive. In hindsight I probably should have checked the sources more thoroughly, but GiantSnowman's comments on my talk page weren't especially helpful and left a bad taste in my mouth. I know this is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and doesn't directly relate to rollback, but I think it indicates that the communication issues that led to his editing restrictions have not been entirely resolved. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 18:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I meant to link to this edit. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 18:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you were right! I actually just made that mistake again. I've just fixed it. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 18:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [reply to GiantSnomwan] As I've said, I didn't add the information about the loan to the BLP; I just made some minor copyedits. Yes, I should have checked the sources cited in the article to make sure that they supported the loan itself, not just rumors of the loan. Your initial message on my talk page was generic and didn't make this distinction, and you didn't reply to any of my subsequent good-faith inquiries except to state what was already obvious. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 18:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My own experience on GS aside, I agree with EW that the current restrictions are onerous and unnecessary. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 01:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Extraordinary Writ
The GiantSnowman restrictions were an interesting experiment, but I think it's past time to admit that they're causing much more trouble than they're worth. Interpreted literally, GS can't block anyone except a vandal without providing "three escalating messages and template warnings" including "an appropriate self-composed message". Does he need to provide three warnings to sockpuppets? AE says yes. Does he need to provide three warnings for username violations? AN says yes. In practice the most stringent restrictions on blocking have been largely ignored, and the community hasn't really cared because of how absurd the results would be if we followed them to the letter. If GiantSnowman still retains the Committee's trust to be an administrator, at some point you also have to trust that he'll use basic tools like the block button and the rollback button appropriately. Just rescind all the restrictions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Sdrqaz, regarding GiantSnowman
I unfortunately find "Eventually I would like all restrictions formally lifted, although I intend to continue to abide by them indefinitely" jarring, given GiantSnowman's loose adherence to their other block-related restrictions (looking through their last few blocks, adherence seems to be highly rare).

The Committee should proceed very carefully: while I believe that the Community and Committee do not have the sufficient energy and motivation to ensure that such complicated restrictions are being followed, I'm worried about the message this would send to the Community. Is it that the 2019 Committee was so wrong on this issue that the 2023 Committee will forgive GiantSnowman's restriction violations? Committee members should consider whether it would take the same course of action with a non-administrator. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Barkeep, as you correctly point out, I have mixed feelings on this. I think that GiantSnowman's statement makes it seem as if they have been following their restrictions carefully (" to abide by [the restrictions] indefinitely" above) when that has not been the case. To move forward and consider modifications to them, I would (at least) need an acknowledgement that they haven't been followed and a good explanation for it. How the restrictions should be modified would hinge on that – my two final sentences from my previous post are things to consider instead of saying that we should shackle ourselves to the 2019 decision for the sake of it. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Barkeep. To be even more specific: from GiantSnowman's last 20 blocks, even if I discard the many blocks for socking and vandalism that violate the "three escalating messages" restriction, there are ones that violate it. Regarding breaches not being raised, Extraordinary Writ has linked two noticeboard discussions where the closers pointed to the active restrictions.I like most of GiantSnowman's appeal: it seems reflective on what they did that led to the rollback restriction and it provides a decent reason for why they want it to be lifted. But the lack of direct response to requests to provide a reason for why they violated the other restrictions and the reply of "if any of the 'breach' blocks are bad, please let me know" seems to tread near a policy debate on whether "good" actions should be allowed, even if they're in violation of a restriction. That's disappointing, unfortunately. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Ser!
Similar to SamX above, I want to draw the committee's attention to an interaction I had with GiantSnowman in September this year which seems directly relevant to this request. On Louie Barry, I removed a line I felt wasn't due for inclusion. In the interim, another editor made an edit to the infobox, before GiantSnowman reverted both edits with the summary "Rv to last good version". No mention of the edit that I made, just that his version was the "last good version". Assuming that this was an error on GS's part and that the infobox edit had been vandalism, I removed the content, only to be reverted again and told "Do not remove again per BRD." WP:BRD says "BRD is never a reason for reverting", so of course I asked for clarification on the talk page. In the reply that came, I did get the clarification on why he removed the content (fair enough, glad to have gotten some explanation about it), but nothing about the BRD. So I asked again and received no reply. Much like SamX, this lack of communication left a sour taste in my mouth, and given GS's original sanction came for lack of edit summaries and usage of reverts, I feel this interaction involving insufficient edit summaries for reverts and then misapplication of WP:BRD bears noting. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * &#91;in response to GiantSnowman] Sure, I didn't ping, but given you had pretty prominently and repeatedly edited the page it felt fair to assume you had it on your watchlist and had come across the original edits that way, rather than just manually patrolling it. This report contained nothing about "ignoring", just the fact that I did not get a response. I've assumed good faith throughout. The point about you not answering regarding BRD on the talk page when asked and having not explained in the edit summary in the first place still stands. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Statment by SMcCandlish (on GiantSnowman request)
"[T]his entire restriction is too onerous to continue indefinitely absent apparent ongoing problems" seems right to me. So does the observation that the restriction was put in place in lieu of a probable desysop. It's rather weird for us to have an admin (and I'm aware there are a couple of others) allowed to retain the tools but also placed under a restriction because of misuse of them (or other admin-unbecoming behavior, in the other couple of cases I know of). It's unusual, and should not be a permanent situation, nor a precedent to keep doings things like this. Either the admin regains the trust in reasonably short order, or they have failed to do so and should no longer be an admin. WP:ROPE is a long-standing principle, and should just be applied. GS clearly would understand that it's a thin-ice situation and be extra-careful with rollbacking (rollingback?). I don't see any good rationale for a new custom restriction (especially one that seems to make some other random admin into GS's "judge", in a hypothetical situation in which that admin would be WP:INVOLVED already anyway). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Removing the extant restriction and replacing it with something like "A rough consensus of administrators at WP:AE or WP:AN may impose restrictions on (or remove permission for) GiantSnowman's use of rollback" might make more sense. No need for anything more "bespoke"; just use the extant admin-action-reviewing processes that don't re-invoke direct ArbCom involvement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to register some disagreement with a result like "The definition of 'obvious' should be stricter for GS than the typical admin." This is more wandering into bespoke remedies that sidestep the central fact that an editor either has or doesn't have sufficient trust to be an admin. This principle was restated in a request below as "admonish or remove sysop, but don't partially sanction" (as a principle originated by an Arb to whom it was actually applied later, and about which the current Arb votes are to decline removal of that sanction). It will seem to me very inconsistent to uphold that principle at one point on this page and ignore it on the other. My rede of the GiantSnowman request is that GS has not generally lost admin-level trust, but that the concern is simply that future incautious missteps by GS with a tool might later lead to removal of the admin tools completely. This really seems to apply to all admins and everyone else with advanced permissions in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

GiantSnowman: Clerk notes

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



GiantSnowman: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Hi GiantSnowman. Could you explain how you would use rollback on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM. Is the intention to roll back all the edits done under those IP addresses, or just edits that are or may be problematic? SilkTork (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary Writ, if I recall, a desysop was on the cards until the restrictions remedy was offered. And given, as you helpfully point out, that GS broke one of the restrictions last year, which was discovered when GS was taken to AN for what was felt to be an inappropriate block, I'm not so certain regarding the "If GiantSnowman still retains the Committee's trust..." I would rather GS remained an admin to do positive work on the project. But to allow GS to retain the tools, I think I'd prefer to keep the restrictions in place for the time being. I think it is possible that if GS made a mistake with mass rollback, and a complaint was brought to ArbCom, it might be difficult for the Committee to allow GS to retain the admin toolkit. SilkTork (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * GS's response to ST makes me uneasy after reviewing the case. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm open to lifting at least some of the restrictions, particularly "He may not revert another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. This includes use of MediaWiki's rollback function, any tool or script that provides a similar function, and any manual revert without an edit summary. Default edit summaries, such as those provided by the undo function or Twinkle's rollback feature, are not sufficient for the purpose of this sanction." KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this entire restriction is too onerous to continue indefinitely absent apparent ongoing problems. I think I am open to either removing it entirely, or replacing them with something along the following: KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * GS: can you give a few examples of some rollbacks you'd have done in a non-mass setting? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am ready to support removing the prohibition on mass rollback. I'd rather remove the regular rollback restriction at the same time as the communication remedy given that I see those two as more related than rollback is to mass rollback. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not completely sure I understand what you want to happen. Because you seem to be equally saying "I think the 2019 committee erred in passing these restrictions and it's too complicated to be enforced" and saying "But now that this mistake has been made, we're stuck with it less we send a bad message to the community." Do I have that right? As there is a reasonable chance you could be voting on the outcome of this case, and because I am uninterested as I noted above in voting for the motion under consideration, I want to make sure I understand your stance. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman I think the concern is about and I think if you look at your 10 most recent blocks you will see any number of ones where there aren't three escalating messages. I can infer my own reasoning about why that is in some cases but obviously your saying why would be more helpful.More generally, this is why I am only supportive of allowing for mass rollback. That's what the request was for and that's what we have evidence (or in this case absence of evidence) of following the restriction (or not). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A general comment after some discussion with the incoming arbs about this request. For all the problems that have been identified, both with the restriction itself (very complex, had to enforce) and GS's conduct with-in it, which seems to honor the spirit behind the restriction more than the intent or wording (which doesn't bother me in a IAR sense but I can understand why it might bother others), I think GiantSnowman's case is a success story of not defaulting to removing adminship when there has been substantive issues found. In the 12 months prior to the case, GiantSnowman's conduct was regularly troublesome and was taking up a real amount of the community's time to handle. In the years since that has not been the case, while GS has continued to use the administrative toolset to the advantage of the project. And that's true even if we're not entirely thrilled with how he's followed the blocking restriction. In a time of decreasing admin capacity finding ways we can hold admin accountable while still preserving some of their capacity is something I hope we find other ways of doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't like this restriction to start with, per my normal dislike of large custom restrictions on individual users. I generally agree with EW's feelings here, and am open to a complete lift or something along the lines of what L235 proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralNotability (talk • contribs) 00:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. <ul><li>I don't like the restrictions: They shouldn't be needed, and they seem to have been proven impractical to enforce (Sdrqaz's statement).</li><li>I don't like the request either:<ul><li>"I would rollback all edits for all new IPs per WP:DENY": When the word "all" appears in a multiple choice test, it's a red flag because exceptions will likely exist, making the answer wrong. Using the word in a manually written answer, twice, sounds unwise. HazemGM seems to favor editing biographies of living persons; many of their edits are like Special:Diff/1181717483. Such edits can be rollbacked, but they're neither vandalism nor damaging the encyclopedia, nor should one blindly rollback BLP edits en masse. The provided justification is "denying recognition"; that's a weak justification pointing to an essay. WP:BMB/WP:BE exist and primarily deny success rather than recognition. To illustrate the difference, there's a lot of recognition here on this page right now, but the success is threatened by the amount of people looking at the contributions and considering reverts.</li><li>"Eventually I would like all restrictions formally lifted, although I intend to continue to abide by them indefinitely...": Really? The justification for requesting the restrictions' removal is how "onerous" and "impacting" they are. That's understandable. Why, then, would one intend to continue to abide by them indefinitely? "I'd like to be freed from jail, but I intend to stay inside indefinitely"? I wouldn't.</li></ul></li></ul>I'm unsure in which direction the current situation should be changed, but it should probably be changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder how happy you would be with the first draft motion. It doesn't restrict which concerns can be raised with GS, which in a sense a broadening of the current set of restrictions. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought about this for a while because opposing something that is a step in the right direction isn't easy, but it's unfortunately the result of my thoughts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (as acknowledged to GiantSnowman by sending a "Thanks" before already, but for the record: Thanks for the clarification.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These are my (Z1720) thoughts and do not represent the committee as a whole: I was content with the responses GiantSnowman gave to Barkeep49, Silktork, and a lesser extent Sdrqaz. I am not impressed with the tone of their responses to SamX, and a lesser extent Ser! For me, the self-reflective nature of GS’s responses to BK is much preferred over the tone used in their responses to SamX. I hope GS reflects on why I have this impression and makes changes to their tone when talking to others. If GS wants more clarification from me on the above, they can email me and I’m happy to give additional thoughts privately.
 * Concerning GS's sanctions: I agree with the statements above that they should not stay as-is. Some restrictions are complicated, impractical, and/or difficult to enforce. Others are common sense and should be adhered to by all admin regardless of sanctions or not. Others are no longer needed because of GS’s improvements since the case was decided. I will be supporting some sort of restriction(s) on GS but they should not be as strict or complicated as the ones given after the 2019 case. I think the motions proposed below are a good start but not quite what I'm looking for. I’m currently brainstorming by myself and with arbitrators about what the restrictions should be; if editors have thoughts, either about what worked/did not work with the current sanctions or what the new sanctions should be, feel free to post them. I’m also mindful that this motion has been open for a long time, and want to see this motion decided upon soon. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My thoughts largely align with ToBeFree and Z1720; there has been a reasonable argument made for lifting the rollback restriction (and avoiding such a complex bespoke sanction), but I am not fully convinced that the issues will not arise in the future. The first motion below, which is not yet open for voting, at least allows for a process by which any potential recidivism can be formally evaluated. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See above. I don't really agree with ToBeFree's prison analogy: I had viewed it as a commitment to follow the restrictions until they're lifted, not forever. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

 * Proposing for discussion. I'll open this to a vote today if there are no suggestions. I'd like to get this wrapped up before the new year. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This allows an administrator to TBAN another administrator unilaterally for any infraction. Which isn't unheard of, but I think we've mostly tended toward use of AE in such a circumstance...? Izno (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it help if AE appeals were explicitly allowed? Just put the last paragraph in, in brackets. I want the "concern" process to feel lightweight, less like a "sanction" in itself. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of the value of it just being admins who could raise concerns, so I prefer the notion of any concerned individual raising an issue at AE. However, I am even more unsure of the benefits to either GS or the project as a whole in lifting this restriction, so I would likely oppose. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will be opposing this --Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As this is replacing a custom, user-tailored restriction with just another custom, user-tailored restriction – and I hope I'll be forgiven for calling this type of restrictions an attempt to make the community "babysit" an administrator – I'd probably oppose it. I'm particularly unhappy about the wording "resolved to the satisfaction of the uninvolved administrator" (their superior, suddenly; their mentor; I won't repeat another possible term), but it's not a wording issue; I'm not a fan of the general idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't that bespoke of a sanction. It essentially amounts to "any administrator may ban GiantSnowman from making rollbacks and blocks", said a bit more nicely. Which is not an uncommon structure (see e.g. WP:CTOP). KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion: GiantSnowman restrictions lifted (December 2023)

 * Support
 * 1) I think the "concern" process I proposed above is distracting from the main point, which is that these restrictions seem unduly onerous and should be lifted absent evidence they should remain in effect. I'm not persuaded to retain them by what's been presented here at this ARCA. I would therefore lift the restrictions. These can be reinstated upon request here at ARCA. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 09:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) I concur with Kevin. I also remind GiantSnowman that the existence of these restrictions in the first place means that their actions will be subject to extra scrutiny, and so they should take extra care in use of rollback. If we find ourselves here again in the future because of similar issues, I will be quite unhappy. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I generally agree with your concern of this possibly sending the wrong message to the community. Your example "c", blocking AltagraciaRD after a single warning, is a clear violation of the requirement to "not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings" (restriction 2). Still, I can not oppose the removal of a problematic restriction just because someone has provided an example of a situation in which it has been proven to be problematic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) I fall squarely here. It appears that GiantSnowman has generally kept out of trouble since the case closed, and to me that's the key part, as it would seem that an administrator under restrictions would really be under the spotlight as concerns further misuse of tools. If some actions were generally within the bounds of admin discretion, I don't think it's unreasonable to look the other way if they didn't entirely follow the letter of a complex restriction. At this point, the case closed almost five years ago, meaning that it's approaching the "ancient history" pile. It would be best to lift the restrictions outright, with an implicit or explicit understanding that if issues similar to those from the case arise, then the outcome would very possible be a desysop, and not to reimpose restrictions. Maxim (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) GiantSnowman has come to us with a reasonable appeal, and so I see no reason not to lift this restriction. Each user is responsible for all edits they make. Administrators are adults, and they reap the consequences of their actions. GiantSnowman says they'll follow the rules. I will take them at their word, as they remain an administrator in good standing. Should they fail to use rollback responsibly, we'll be back here, but I will not be so understanding. Whether this works is up to GiantSnowman. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 21:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Struck vote of former arbitrator I see no advantage to the project nor to GiantSnowman in lifting restrictions which have worked, and have benefited GiantSnowman by keeping them out of trouble. I do, however, see the potential for harm, if the restrictions are lifted and GiantSnowman then makes an error. That the appeal came with an example of wanting to perform wholesale rolling back of hundreds of beneficial albeit minor edits such as, has given me cause for concern. SilkTork (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) Per Sdrqaz. We shouldn't reward not following restrictions. -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 08:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) This motion would essentially remove all restrictions, which I oppose at this time. Some restrictions are still needed so GS can show their improvements gradually, instead of potentially making a mistake and going back to harsher sanctions; even GS implies in their statement that they are not asking for a complete removal at this time. This vote doesn't mean I support indefinite sanctions but rather hope that GS will adhere to some restrictions and apply for their complete removal at a later time. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my comments elsewhere in this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Per my comments on the other motion below.  firefly  ( t · c ) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with Z1720's assessment, in particular regarding the information by Sdrqaz about the non-adherence to the restriction currently in place. The current restriction as worded needs adjustment in one way or another, but removing it entirely does not appear to be the best solution at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) My thoughts on this motion has not changed since December (see ); it should come as no surprise that I am opposing it. ToBeFree's point about not opposing "the removal of a problematic restriction just because someone has provided an example of a situation in which it has been proven to be problematic" is a reasonable one, but this motion goes too far in seemingly endorsing the mentality that because something was good, it doesn't matter whether it was done in violation of a restriction. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) Per my comments above in the general discussion. Primefac (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) Pre below discussion. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 12:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * , you supported the motion below, which is a "second choice" to many of its supporters; if you oppose this one here, these will come into effect (8 opposes > 15/2 arbs). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion: GiantSnowman restrictions amended (January 2024)
Enacted - firefly  ( t · c ) 18:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Second choice. Less bespoke than the original sanction, which is an improvement, but still tiresome to navigate. At nearly five years out from the case, it would be simpler to remove the restrictions, unless GiantSnowman expresses that they wish for some sanctions to remain. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 21:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) A reasonable retooling --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my comments below.  firefly  ( t · c ) 22:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) I think this addresses most of my concerns with the (December) motion. I will revisit this if necessary based on other arb feedback to my question below. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Striking, at least temporarily, my support (which given the 2nd choice votes means I think this is currently not passing). Sdqraz has questions about how this handles sockpuppetry and since this motion doesn't actually solve the issues of people with concerns before I'm not yet ready to support it. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reinstated with the concerns resolved. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a more clear and concise reworking of the original restriction that makes it easier for GiantSnowman to work within. - Aoidh (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Second choice.  I'd like to make a general comment about bespoke sanctions like here, which is that they take much more work to maintain, revisit, revise, and enforce than standardized sanctions. In this case, it's probably worth it. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Second choice. Maxim (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) This strikes a good balance between total removal and doing nothing, simplifying the existing restriction to make it easily remembered and easily enforced. Primefac (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Second choice, but I'll take it. I do not want a carve-out for sockpuppetry; if it needs to be taken care of right away it probably also falls into the vandalism/BLPvio exceptions, and if it doesn't, they can throw it onto the pile at SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) GiantSnowman, please read the discussion in this request generally and down below in the motion-specific discussion. As written, this restriction does not allow you to block sockpuppets without warning – while this is looser than your previous restriction, it means that some of your recent blocks would not be allowed either. Given the violations of the prior restriction, I will not be impressed if a violation of this one is reported too. If in doubt, err on the side of caution: the vandalism and BLP violations need to be obvious to others without your subject-specific expertise, please. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 8) I think this a reasonable simplification, and I agree with Kevin about "bespoke" restrictions like this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) As I had described above, replacing a custom, user-tailored restriction by just another custom, user-tailored restriction isn't really an option to me. If the trust in 's use of the tools is low enough for ArbCom to create a sanction specifically for them, they shouldn't be an administrator or the sanction is wrong. And at very least, a motion with this amount of "second choice" votes shouldn't pass in apparent unanimity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Comments by arbitrators
 * Proposed for discussion after some chat on the list. Arbs - please feel free to copyedit the motion as you see fit. I am very torn on this ARCA - on the one hand the restrictions in GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review are extremely complex and difficult to enforce. On the other hand, they do seem to have had a positive impact as Barkeep49 notes above. I also feel that if restrictions are felt to be "absurd" or otherwise overbearing (Extraordinary Writ's submission, and for clarity I don't necessarily disagree with EW's sentiment) that the proper resolution is to file a request to have them amended, not for them to be partially ignored, as doing so sets a poor example to the community. Like Sdrqaz and Guerillero, I find it very hard to 'reward' ignoring ArbCom restrictions.
 * This motion is a half-way point between the status quo and removing the restrictions entirely, by removing all but the core restrictions. It hinges in part on the idea that you can have the convenience of Rollback while providing an explanation in your edit summary via various user scripts. They pop up a message box when the [rollback] link is clicked, and if you fill the box in, that is used as the edit summary. firefly  ( t · c ) 09:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm broadly supportive of this, but do want to note that the "standard exceptions" piece has been troubling for some arbs. Had this motion been in place would it have addressed the concerns those arbs had about GS past actions? Because if not I don't think we're setting anyone up for success. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW if it is felt that the restrictions should apply without exception I would probably support that version of the motion as well. firefly  ( t · c ) 17:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd support this as a second choice, but would appreciate removing the "obvious exceptions" language and instead saying something like "with the exception of obvious vandalism or obvious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons". To be especially clear, BANEX permits reverting obvious vandalism; I would also permit blocking over obvious vandalism. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable tweak, essentially copying the BANEX language and ensuring it applies to both actions as you say. I've made the amendment - pinging and  as they have already voted.  firefly  ( t · c ) 22:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by moi. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What are people's thoughts on blocks for sockpuppetry? We don't tend to give warnings for socking, and GiantSnowman has carried out such blocks without the warning system, as I highlighted above. I've also added a link to this place in the last sentence of the motion to clarify where an appeal should be made. Hopefully that's uncontroversial. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support excepting sockpuppetry from the restriction, but I would also support repealing the restriction entirely, so I suppose my willingness to except sockpuppetry doesn't help much. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sdrqaz I agree that we don't tend to give warnings for socking - it's not something that warnings resolve. We could amend the exceptions to With the exception of obvious vandalism, or obvious violations of the policies on sockpuppetry or the biographies of living people: but at that point are we moving too far toward the "bespoke and complex" situation that is part of the reason we are here. Thoughts, anyone? :)
 * It may also be worth clarifying the potential consequences for violation of the restriction, given that AE doesn't typically handle cases of this type. For instance, do we want to add wording clarifying that a rough consensus of administrators at AE can impose restrictions on GiantSnowman's use of rollback? firefly  ( t · c ) 12:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding carve-outs for sock-blocks: This was talked about in the case's PD; it was noted that GS did not frequent SPI and, if they discovered sockpuppetry during anti-vandal patrolling, they could report it at SPI or AVI for another admin to handle. Five years later, I don't think GS is working at SPI and I would prefer that they avoid sock-blocks until and unless they start frequenting that area. I also note that GS's statement only requests lifting rollback restrictions, not blocking restrictions for socking. I think this motion should not carve an exemption for blocks concerning sockpuppeting or other obvious violations. Instead, GS can ask for help from other admin. GS could file a new request in a couple months if they realise that the blocking restriction is preventing positive contributions. After saying all that, a socking exception would not be a deal-breaker for me for approving sanctions. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding other carve-outs: the case's PD also talked about other carve-outs for obvious vandalism: arbs in 2018/19 were worried that GS was unable to distinguish between obvious vandalism and good-faith efforts, and that too many carve-outs would make the sanctions meaningless. Several years later, I think we can allow GS to show their knowledge of the distinction and allow an obvious-vandalism carve-out. However, when I say "obvious", I mean the extreme cases (like blanking a page and replacing it with a swear word). If there is any ambiguity or doubt, even the smallest amount, GS should seek out additional input from admin colleagues or just return to the three-warning system. The definition of "obvious" should be stricter for GS than the typical admin. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding AE: I think AE is the proper place for concerns with GS's use of rollback can be expressed. Specific instructions for admin can be given in a motion; I am brainstorming some wording and hope to post it soon. Perhaps the consequences of violating the sanctions can be proposed as a new motion below, to not mess up the counts of the previous motions. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am convinced enough by your analysis that I would probably recommend against a carve-out for sockpuppetry. As for the other carve outs, we could add some language around "narrowly construed", but I wonder whether our commentary here would be enough guidance to GiantSnowman to interpret "obvious vandalism" strictly.
 * Happy with a follow-on motion to avoid (further) complicating counts here, personally. firefly  ( t · c ) 16:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the current motion – I just wanted us to be crystal-clear about how the motion should be interpreted. As for consequences, if there are issues with following this one, I would rather that the Committee deals with them itself. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)