Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 128 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_128

Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice, and the contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.

Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.

ToBeFree Based on your statement, would I be correct in assuming there would be no problem (procedurally-wise?), if, for example, I went through the list of pages logged as "indef ECP" or similar in the enforcement log, and added topic-specific editnotices to them? While I've seen some commentary below about the efficacy of these editnotices, I personally find it helpful to have these types of editnotices present on pages just for the purposes of having a big banner to tell me a certain page is applicable to CTOP. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.

Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

• My read of the procedures is that edit notices are not required when an entire topic area is under a particular restriction (e.g. 1RR) or if an individual administrator changes the protection level under the CT procedures. They are required id an individual administrator places a page restriction (other than protection) on an individual page. The key phrasing is, for me, An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.(formatting removed). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• The main purpose of these edit notices, to me, is informing users about a restriction so they can adhere to it. This is not needed for page protection; MediaWiki both displays details about the protection and prevents restriction violations at the same time. The protection text already contains the needed information (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging). All users automatically adhere to page protections, which is probably why Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices explicitly exempts them from the editnotice requirement.
  Topic-wide restrictions such as the extended-confirmed restriction can be enforced with blocks as long as a user is (formally) aware of the restriction; edit notices are not required for the imposition or enforcement of topic-wide restrictions. A user restricted from editing about weather must not edit about weather, and they may be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do so even if the affected pages didn't display a huge "this is a weather-related page" edit notice above them.
  This makes the actual question less relevant than EggRoll97 may have thought, but the answer is that {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, which explains topic-wide restrictions, may be added by anyone technically able to do so, and {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is for use by administrators who impose a different page restriction than page protection. It will rarely be missing where it is actually required, but it if is actually clearly missing somewhere, I'd recommend simply asking the enforcing administrator to fix the issue. The existence of a page restriction (other than page protection) begins with the creation of the edit notice to my understanding, so failing to place the edit notice doesn't do the action incorrectly, it simply fails to take action at all. This is why, to me, page restrictions other than page protection can't be "fixed" by anyone else. They simply don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  EggRoll97, I think adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}} as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to XYZ would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.
  Adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}} as an edit notice to pages related to XYZ closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.
  There's an exception though: I wouldn't add {{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}} to BLPs, as being in Category:Living people already causes {{BLP editnotice}} to appear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think this can be closed as answered. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• To answer whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, yes; adding an edit notice where one is missing is something anyone (with the correct permissions) is able to do. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Actions by parties to a proceeding and various cases desysopping people

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

• HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Simple question: are admins who were desysopped by the committee or who resigned while a party to a case eligible to regain the tools by standing at Wikipedia:Administrator elections? I think the answer is yes, and I am even more certain the answer ought to be yes.

I am bringing this up now – and I am deliberately not naming any individual cases – because it is already going to be a drama-fest when a former admin runs to regain the tools and the ArbCom case in question is brought to the forefront. The last thing we need at that point in time is uncertainty regarding whether any particular ex-admin is even eligible for AELECT and then the inevitable ARCA specific to that case attracting yet more drama. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It is described as an alternative to the Requests for Adminship process at WP:ADE, and the rest of the lead describes how it is distinct from RfA. My understanding is that ADE is another way to request adminship, but it is not a big-r Request for Adminship (even though the WP:Requests for adminship page is not capitalized, it is capitalized at WP:ADE and I think that is a good way of communicating the difference). Thinking out loud, perhaps a motion adding something to WP:ARBPRO stating that unless specified otherwise, "requests for adminship" refers to any method of requesting adminship, including a traditional RfA or a successful candidacy at WP:ADE. (And that this applies retroactively.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the community approved a trial, it's on track to be run in October, and the plan is to "run the election as written" with no further RfCs. It seems the community has finalized its plans around elections as much as it's going to, and while it's pretty unlikely that anyone off of WP:FORCAUSE is going to run in October, I think HouseBlaster is right that giving some sort of guidance now could forestall a lot of drama. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the request for adminship process will have two routes for a trial period: the open voting method, and the secret ballot method. Thus the arbitration committee procedure in question covers both routes. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. My concern would be the fact that discussion goes on before voting starts and is basically forbidden once voting opens. A candidate could give evasive or incomplete answers to questions for three days, or give no answers until just before voting opens, and that's it. I think there is a small but real risk that this could become a back door for previously problematic admins to slip through. I think the safest road would probably be to consider both options going forward, but to leave previous decisions worded as is. There was no expectation at the time these previous decisions were made that there would be any other path to adminship, it doesn't exactly seem fair to the community to basically retroactively give these users a second path. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a small pool of former administrators who remain with the project yet are ineligible to request the tools back at BN; I speak as one of them. Pondering this candidate process, I can think of three separate reasons why the proposed process might actually be ideal for such ex-admins:

1) The records of what the ex-admin did well or badly as an admin aren't hard to find, so the impact of a shorter question/response period will likely be negligible.

2) Voting anonymity gives those who interact cordially with such ex-admins the ability to vote against them having the tools back without offending the ex-admin who continues to contribute to the project.

3) Voting anonymity gives those who have previously tangled with the ex-admins the freedom to vote for them having the tools back without the potential to lose face doing so.

Thus, I recommend ArbCom accept the pilot process as fully equivalent to RfA for ex-admins who are not eligible to request the tools back via BN. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

• Recuse, obviously. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• When I've been asked about this privately my answer is that once the community adopts this formally, we can see if the motions need to be updated. If Admin Elections are considered a way to RfA the standard langauge will work. If it's considered some new way, we can pass a motion to retroactively add it as an option. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster WP:ADE is at the moment a work in process. Who knows what it says or what RfA will say by the time it's adopted. If the community decides the current process and elections are two paths of the same process, sort of like how you can appeal at AN or AE for CT sanctions, then I don't think we need to do anything. And if the community decides they're different then we act. But I think we should be taking our cues from the community and there is no need for us to act until the community finalized its plans around elections. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like there will be a consensus to change things for the trial. However, if someone was desyopped and wants to run, I urge them to make a specific request even if we're not going to make any comprehensive change. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, agree with Barkeep. Or we could add something like “or equivalent process” after mention of RfA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Also agree with Barkeep. If the community establishes a new process to become an admin, editors who are desysoped can also use that process to request/apply for the tools. Requests to update documents can happen if/when those processes are put in place. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Having run at one RfA and at two elections, I'm not a fan of the elections (a lot more uncertainty-induced stress). Putting that aside, this question was asked at Conflict of interest management and the answer is "yes": the point is that they cannot just ask at WP:BN. I'm fine with amending the procedures now, given that this is in front of us now and given Extraordinary Writ's comments. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not so gung-ho on letting desysopped admins run until after the test run. If the test run goes fine and dandy, I think the answer is an obvious yes. But if the test run is a failure/the community decides it is not going to adopt the election process after all, that raises some complex issues about legitimacy which would be further complicated by a previously desysopped admin. I'm not certain I understand how the test run will work, so if I'm wrong about the mechanics, please correct me :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• To me, any of the committee's references to RfA includes admin elections and includes any trials of the new process, unless the message separately mentions admin elections too. I also don't really see a legitimacy problem specific to desysopped admins in case of a trial failure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think this is an example of something falling under "hard cases make bad law". The intention of "may regain tools only through a new RfA" is less to require RfA specifically, but to prohibit asking a bureaucrat for summary restoration. That said, it probably would be cleaner that no former admins with cloudy circumstances in the first election, until we have a sense of how administrator elections work in practice (which would remove an hard or edge case situation). Yet, I don't feel nearly strongly enough about to consider formally making a rule about it; if anything, a sort of a gentlemen's agreement would be more appropriate. Maxim (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• This feels like putting the horse a country mile before the cart. I would rather we return to this discussion if the community does this as more than a once off --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I do not see a need to change the wording. The text says ..submit a new request for adminship, not ...submit a new Request for Adminship, and one can thus argue per the rationale at WP:SMALLDETAILS (and the spirit of the motion) that "putting my name down for an administrator election" is considered a "request for adminship". Primefac (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• This is one where I do have strong feelings. I would strongly support a motion clarifying that admin elections are open to desysopped admins if such a motion were proposed. The purpose of RfA and any alternatives is to determine whether an editor has a mandate from the community to be an administrator. I agree it would be cleaner if the first few candidates through the trial process were free of any baggage but in principle I would welcome a candidacy from a desysopped admin; I'm certain there are ex-admins with chequered histories who could be valuable assets. I don't think we need a motion but we can always revisit it if or when one of these ex-admins runs and succeeds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• I concur with HJ. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• If the community decides that this process should proceed and is a valid way for the community to determine whether or not they believe a candidate who is requesting adminship should receive the administrative tools, then that meets what I believe is the intent of the submit a new request for adminship wording of the relevant procedure. If this becomes an established method of requesting adminship then that wording can be clarified as needed, but I'm not certain that needs to be done yet. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

[1]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. "These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums."

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

• Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• "These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums."
  • This should be struck out as a falsehood

My apologies to the rest of the community, but there won't be much opportunity for any of you to make informed comments here as the evidence here is private.

It is part of ArbCom's public record that I was issued a "formal warning" in September 2021. This is false. I obviously can't reproduce the email discussion here, but I would ask each arbitrator to search the b-list archives for September 2021 for the thread "FAO: Beeblebrox - regarding recent comments" and tell me if they see a formal warning in there. WTT and myself had a fairly cordial discussion, in which he did make it clear he was speaking on behalf of the committee, but there absolutely is not a "formal warning".

Did the committee vote ont he b-list to issue one? I don't know as I no longer have access to the archives, but I'm pretty sure it would requirte a formal vote to issue a formal warning to a sitting arbitrator.

This was clearly put into this decision to imply there was some precedent of me being warned for discussing private communication on off-wiki criticism sites, when the not-a-warning mainly discussed the tone of my remarks on Commons and off-wiki, and also what I fully admit was an inexcusable comment I made in error on an internal mailing list, which obviously is an entirely seperate issue. The only part of it with any implication of private information two words that probably could've been left unsaid, and again, it was manifestly not a formal warning.

I'm not trying to excuse my own behavior. I did what the committee said I did, but the committee did not do what it said it did. This false information should be struck from the record. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't a warning, then what exactly did you think it was? It was not worded as a warning, it's a list of concerns, most of which have no relation whatsoever with the reason I was suspended. I explained my position on itat ARBN [2] after the suspension was announced:

Three things were mentioned in that incident. One was comments I made on another WMF site about a user on that site, along with a parrelell conversation at Wikipediocracy. It had literally nothing to do with the committee or any kind of confidential information, some people just didn't like it. That's it. No actual policy violation. Another was my supposed outing of the troll who is at the center of all of this. There was no outing. Anyone in possession of even half of the facts knows this. No confidentail information of any kind was involved, and again it was utterly unrelated to any arbcom business. The third thing mentioned in there was a remark I did make on one of the mailing lists that I deeply regret. I beilieve what happened was that I thought I was commenting on the ArbCom list when it was in fact the functionaries list and my comment was about a specific member of that team, and not a very positive one. I never intended to insult this user, let alone to do so in front of their peers. It was an error apparenty due to innatention and I apologized to the user and to other functionaries who expressed their dismay about it. So, that's what that is about. I therefore do not agree that the more recent incident was part of a pattern as it was none of the things I was warned about.

Concerns were shared with me, and I responded to those concerns with my honest feedback. There was no hint of "do it again and there will be consequences" which is what a warning is normally understood to be. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As you can see, when these concerns were brought to me, I responded to them by flatly rejecting the validity of large portions of it as not being arbcom business. I apologized for the one glaring error I did make, that in no way involved private information, it was just a screw up. The only part of this laundry list that has any bearing on what came later was two words that were at worst ill considered but did not explicitly reveal anything of real substance. Worm and I talked some more about some of it, but the committee as a whole made no reply to my rejection of the basis of most of this list of concerns.

The committee may have intended it as a formal warning, but it did not come across as one. That's not my fault. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like every time any aspect of this situation is discussed, I keep getting told that I should have known to assume things that were not explicitly stated, because I was an arb and for no other reason. I don't buy that line of argument, at all. I was a party being investigated by the committee and have the same right as anyone else to expect clear and explicit communication from the committee. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I don't expect an apology, I just want a false statement removed from the official record. I'm not asking for anything more than that.

However, it is perhaps worth noting that Fae was eventually banned here and ragequit at Commons, and used a bunch of exceedingly obvious socks over at Meta, and that RH&E was desysopped and banned here, desysopped and blocked at Commons, blocked on Wikidata, and finally globally banned by the office. In light of all that I continue to struggle to see how I was the bad guy here, or why it was any of the committee's business what I said on Commons or WPO about either one of them. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: the existence of that discussion was used as a justification later on the grounds that I had already been warned about leaking material from the mailing list. Do you see where it explicitly says that in the supposed warning, because I do not. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think it would be illuminating for the community if the committee were to post a semi-redacted version of the email to me, as I have done with my reply. Maybe I'm wrong and upon seeing it others will agree with the assertion that it was a formal warning, I really don't know. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As to the ")a" alluded to below, I think the key sentence is the one right before that. This is the crux of my argument here. This felt to me like a polite reminder more than a formal warning. I understand that there was an apparent intent that it be recieved as a warning, but it was not. To my mind a formal warning would not use language like that and would be more stern.

I want to be clear, in case anyone is thinking I'm setting the stage to try and get the entire motion revoked or dismissed or whatever, I am not and will not be doing so. I just think there is a factual error here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the proposed ammended language is more reflective of what actually happened and would be satisfied with that outcome. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I may be a little rusty, but it looks to me like the motion has passwd and should be enacted, and we're done here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 06:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: thank you for clarifying. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

CaptainEek, to give some outside perspective; from what you've said I would personally not interpret that as a "formal warning" - I would expect such a warning to call itself a warning, or at a least a synonym.

I probably wouldn't even interpret it as a warning, and while that might be a personal flaw, I think its useful for the committee to remember the cultural and neurological diversity of the community here and be very explicit in their communications. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As a former arbitrator who participated in the deliberations with respect to both Rodhullandemu and Fae during my tenure, I would encourage the members of the current committee to review their history during 2011-12. The fact that both are involved in more drama a decade-ish later suggests that my colleagues and I did not do enough to ensure their permanent removal from all WMF projects. I believe there were adequate, although differing, grounds for such known to the committee (and Jimbo, in at least one of the cases) through private evidence at that time. Had the committee then pursued a remedy those familiar with the situation and subsequent events can endorse in retrospect, large parts of the above message would have been unnecessary.

Now, having said that, JustStepSideways, even if you've been done dirty... what outcome do you want? If an apology? Sure, I get the desire, but I question whether the benefit is worth the drama. The committee isn't the greatest at handling internal dissent, and I doubt it ever will be.

But if the fastest way to end this is to s/formal warning/expression of concern/, such a change requires the active agreement of a team of volunteers whom you've just called liars. If they do it, I'm not sure who comes out looking more magnanimous. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference between the committee and JSS over whether the communication given to JSS should have reasonably been perceived to be a formal warning. Here are the top three hits for a DuckDuckGo query for "employment law formal written warning elements". While ArbCom is not a paid position, it certainly involves more work than many such positions, and there are relatively consistent expectations, at least in the United States, for how to go about such a warning. Which elements of written employment warnings were plausibly germane to an ArbCom member? Which ones were clearly and unequivocally delivered? In light of those answers, is it reasonable to continue to call that communication a formal warning? Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Question for the committee: for those of us outside the loop, what is the difference between a “warning” and a “formal warning” in this context? In other Wikipedia contexts it seems like the analogous difference would be “please don’t do X again” versus “if you do X again, you may be/will be blocked”, but I presume the committee has its own procedures and definitions. 28bytes (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, a formal warning usually has the trappings that make it, well, formal. "For the Arbitration Committee" is definitely one of them, but they are generally either Case Remedies or Motions that take the explicit form User:Example is reminded/warned/admonished that.... Here[3][4][5][6] are a few examples of formal warnings I grabbed from the archives; while I obviously don't have access to private motions I'd expect them to be logged privately and have similar trappings to show that they are a motion and a formal warning.

While arbs may have intended the message sent to JSS as a formal warning, the will of Arbcom writ large isn't always the same thing. Formal warnings include those formalities not just as decoration, but to ensure that there is no ambiguity and misunderstandings like this don't happen.

And now I think I've said the word formal so many times that it's formally lost all meaning... The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to just say "we probably shouldn't have said 'formal warning', we probably should have said 'warning'"? If it's bugging JSS, and does no harm, why not just give him the small win? Even if you don't think it's necessary? Twisting yourself in knots, CaptainEek, to say, essentially, "well even though it wasn't a formal warning, how could he not know it was a formal warning" ... what benefit is served, to anyone? Also, Beeb, please request Oversight back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Who wants an unsolicited opinion by a user that has faded into the past but was relevant at the time? It's what this saga needs isn't it? I'll take some blame here - I took the lead in 2021, and therefore the lack of clarity that came out at the end may well have been at least partially down to me and my style. So was the email a "formal warning" - well it didn't include the word "warning", nor did it include any indication of ramifications if the email was not heeded. It was not a "Warning" by arbcom standards "X is warned that..." However, it was clearly a warning - i.e. cautionary advice - and it was formal - i.e. voted upon, out of the blue for JSS & framed as from the committee. In other words, all sides are right from a point of view and digging heels in won't get anyone anywhere.

If that were all I had to say, I wouldn't have dragged my sorry rear end back here - it's patently clear to both sides and should be easy enough to sort out. The problem is hurt, on both sides. Not long ago, JSS was considered one of our best - spoke his mind, engaged with the community and worked hard in the deep meta of Wikipedia. He was attacked for that, as many admins at the coal face are, and since he helped the fall from grace of a few prominent (but oh so problematic) users, he took the brunt of their anger. I saw this, because I took a fair chunk of their anger too. Being in those roles wear at you, and is certainly a contributory factor that I'm not here every day.

I could understand if the committee felt that they could not carry on with one of their number acting in a manner at odds with the committee's psyche. I can even imagine that JSS said something somewhere that crossed a line that that meant he needed to be shown the door. But let's be clear here - the manner in which you as a committee did so has left the encyclopedia in a poorer state. The power imbalance between the individual and the committee is something that every committee member should be painfully aware of, the damage that can be done by making a statement must never outweigh the benefit of that statement. I hope that every committee member considers deeply about whether this sort of thing could have been handled by a "quiet word", firmly but away from public eyes, or even encouraging resignation (jump before push). This should be a time for reflection, a time to ask what could have been done better and how.

My opinion is that the committee can help repair this, for little to no cost from their side besides climbing back down on the issue. I've said above that you're not wrong, but it's not about being right or wrong, it's about doing the right thing Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

To paraphrase Louis Brandeis, the goal of the ArbCom as a whole and of each of its members (past, present, and future) should be to resolve disputes and dramas, not to introduce disputes and dramas of their own. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a great expression that came up around 2016: "You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts." The facts seem to be that ArbCom sent Beeblebrox a message of some kind at the indicated time and about this non-public subject. It also seems that it was intended as a warning. But "Beeblebrox should have understood that it was a warning" is an opinion, and reasonable people may disagree. I think one of the arbs may have hit the nail on the head: "JSS, did you need it spelled out for you that it was bad to do those things and you shouldn't do them again?"

It looks like yes they did. And why not do so? Wikipedia is a diverse, multinational project and not everyone thinks the same way or makes the same assumptions.

I think Floq, Maxim, and Worm have it right. If the description of the message as a formal warning is a problem, why not improve it? The substance of the message, whatever it was, will stay the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

• When I saw this notification I was thinking "Yeah JSS can request restoration of OS now, I hope addresses what I mention in January because I want to restore." Obviously this is a different request than what I was expecting. I'm going to hold off commenting until some colleagues who weren't on the committee in 2021 and 2023 can weigh in on this (both in terms of what happened in 2021 and whether the wording was fair in what was voted on last year). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @28bytes reasonable question. I don't know what the intent was of the arb who did the initial draft of what would become that motion. If the initial draft had been written as "warning" rather than "formal warning" I doubt formal would have been added, but in my mind the formality was that it was voted upon and the email addressing it made clear that it was on behalf of the entire committee. This is in contrast to some discussions, both with Beeblebrox and others, where it's more a "hey please knock that off" type of thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways what did/do you think (a) in the email means? Happy for you to reply privately if you prefer so that neither of us have to speak so obliquely. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways I've just got to say, and I'm saying this next part as bluntly as I can because so much of this has been your complaints that things weren't written plainly in a way you could understand: you've blown this. When this has come up behind the scenes, I have argued that were you to make a credible promise to not reveal confidential information, something as simple as While I still don't think I did anything wrong I understand the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and will not reveal any information I learn as an oversighter. Please let me have that back. we not only should but would basically have no choice to restore your OS and to functionaries. Because that is the difference between removal and a suspension and you'd have done your six month suspension so all should now be restored just as it would have been had you been suspended for six months and your term hadn't been up. And I think there was maybe a majority of the committee ready to vote along with me. Instead you want to rehash whether or not we warned you. Maybe the committee will vote to change it to warned from formally warned - serious question: if we did this would you feel satisfied or would you only be satisfied if we struck the warning characterization altogether? If I could just make the decision to change that wording from formal warning to warning I would reagrdless of whether or not it would make you happy, but I am also incredibly uninterested in spending even a fraction of the time I've spent here on other appeals from other people who think we got a word wrong and would be happier if we struck a word.

  Maybe the committee will decide to make public the 2021 letter, maybe it won't. My first and second thoughts were that we shouldn't because I have become rather skeptical of partial transparency measures in situations like this and am uninterested in defending how we chose to redact it considering that would be two steps (Warning/not a warning->2021 letter redactions) removed from what we should be doing (voting on restoring your OS and functionary status) and one step away from the actual request made here. Now I'm wavering on those thoughts because transparency is important to me and so despite all my concerns, it might still be the right thing to do.

  But I'm just overwhelmingly sad that this is what is important to you and what we're spending time on. Which means that in six months when you'd be eligible for another appeal (because I imagine that limitation is what will be set regardless of whether we change formal warning to warning) I'll be off the committee. Or if instead you decide to run for ArbCom again in 4 months you won't be able to benefit from the fact that you've had your access restored. I was never - absent you going off the rails in your response to us which didn't happen - going to vote to remove you because I don't think your offenses merit that (one reason why? I think you are innocent of what Fae accused you of) and because of the incredibly high regard I have held you at all times not related to WPO. And rather than take the hint that I dropped for you in January and here (and which perhaps Sdqraz also tried to drop for you for you) and rather than taking the advice that Floq offered you, you just want to be vindicated about the 2021 email. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. It just feels so small compared to what could have been. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW - and perhaps no one but me cares and I'm just wasting bytes here - I privately supported (weakly) releasing a redacted version of the 2021 email shortly after making the above comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• The Committee held a vote on the warning on the b-list, after extensive discussion. The resulting message was then transmitted to JSS with the lead in of "on behalf of the rest of the committee," followed by our list of concerns, and signed "For the Arbitration Committee," which any Arb should know means represents the will of ArbCom writ large. If it wasn't a warning, then what exactly did you think it was? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  JSS, did you need it spelled out for you that it was bad to do those things and you shouldn't do them again? You're a bright guy and held a position of trust. The fact that we didn't begin the message with "this is a formal warning" does not prevent it from being one. A message that is a list of concerns is inherently a statement of "don't do that again please." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Like Barkeep, I was not expecting an amendment request on these grounds. I wasn't on the Committee in those years (2021 & 2023); the 2021 message seems clearly caution[ing] or admonish[ing] (someone) against unwise or unacceptable behaviour and therefore a warning. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways: I see the 2021 warning as being on dual bases, one of which was revealing private Committee deliberations (see the "(a)" mentioned by Barkeep and body paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the message [not considering the "on behalf of the rest of the committee" bit mentioned by CaptainEek as a paragraph]).

  @Floquenbeam: I appreciate your pragmatic idea to resolve this, but I don't see how the characterisation of the 2021 message as a "previous formal warning ... concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums" is inaccurate at all, even with the benefit of hindsight. However, I could grumble that the warning should have been public given that it was regarding an incumbent member (and I'll check with the others to see if there is any appetite for that now). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways: The "check with the others to see if there is any appetite for that now" is being resolved (and I am in favor). Sdrqaz (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• When the announcement was posted in November, I was initially somewhat mystified by the "previous formal warning", as my recollection was that WTT had more of a conversation with JSS. My understanding of "formal warning" would be that we had sent something like "Beeblebrox is admonished for X", not so much as a conversation between colleagues, although that conversation was motivated by a consensus that existed amongst the Committee. In 2021, Committee consensus about what to do seemed to have coalesced on either "Informal warning / note from an individual committee member" or "Formal warning / note from the committee as a whole", and the resulting email in my opinion is some weird hybrid of these two options. The sentence "These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums." would probably be more reasonable as "In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised regarding his off-wiki conduct."
  As a more general comment, it is not uncommon for sanctioned users, no matter what "sanction" is involved, to want to have the context described correctly, so I don't think that JSS's request is unreasonable. Maxim (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• @28bytes: I was the one who originally authored the "previous formal warning" language, if my memory serves me correctly. What I meant to convey with that language was that the warning was not just an "informal warning" from the committee, which I think in my mind would have been something like "other arbitrators say to knock it off". Instead, this warning resulted from formal discussions among the Committee on the -b list without JSS present, and was given "For the Arbitration Committee". (For reference, this is a much less common occurrence than the "informal warnings" as describe above; I might be misremembering but in my years on the committee a "formal warning" happens much less than once per year.) Clearly, the language could have been more clear, and I would not strongly object to changing it now, though I broadly concur also in Barkeep's comments. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I read through the discussion and the email. I can see arguments for it being interpreted as a formal warning or a list of concerns. However, JSS was told that his behaviour was inappropriate, then repeated that behaviour. Arbs are expected to have a heightened level of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and I would not expect them to need multiple reminders on a topic such as this. So if the motion says "formal warning", "list of concerns", or something else, I don't care. If an arb wants to put forward a motion to change the wording, my general attitude will probably be "shrug".

What frustrates me is that changing the wording does not fulfil the first pillar of Wikipedia: that this is an encyclopedia. If JSS asked for OS permissions returned, or lifting other restrictions, that could help make the encyclopedia better because JSS is an experienced editor asking to help maintain the wiki. If JSS's wording was accepted, there would be no change to how Wikipedia operates or what tasks JSS can perform. Multiple editors, ex-arbs and arbs have taken time away from wiki-activities to discuss the definitions of a formal warning and a list of concerns. I would rather that JSS's energy, and the energy of all editors who commented, be put towards improving the encyclopedia instead. I will grow increasingly frustrated if JSS continues to ask ARCA to change the motion's wording instead of asking for ways to help them improve the encyclopedia. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• We can move from "formal warning" to "warning" in the text if it will reduce the drama level. Aquila non capit muscas. The edit, however, does not change the reason why the 2023 committee made the decision it did. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• The email in question was formal in the sense that it was not an email from an individual arbitrator, but rather was written on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. However, I wouldn't call it a formal warning in the way that I'm familiar with the concept. I can see valid points for and against it being described as a warning, but a formal warning should be unambiguous in nature. It may be that I'm used to a different standard for what constitutes a warning, but while it outlined concerns about misconduct, it was missing the consequence element that is typically present in a warning. That being said, I think if the word "warning" was changed to "notice" (These failures followed a previous formal notice issued...) it would be an accurate description. - Aoidh (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Support (Suspension of Beeblebrox)

1. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
3. Aoidh (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
4. If this is a version everyone can live with and it puts the issue to bed then fine. I'm not convinced that arguing over semantics is a good use of everyone's time but equally it's fair to say that the "warning" did not explicitly call itself such. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
5. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
7. While I find this to be WP: WIKILAWYERING, and would have rather just outright heard an appeal on the merits, this is a not inaccurate characterization of the 2021 warning. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
8. Maxim (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
9. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
10. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
11. Regular warnings come classified level 2-4. ArbCom warnings analogously are reminded-warned-admonished. For an arbitrator to receive such an email from the rest of the committee and not see it as a warning is (imo) obtuse at best and wikilawyering at worst, on the level of 'depends on what "is" means'. I'll support the change in wording but with no change in my understanding of its underlying intent and meaning. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose (Suspension of Beeblebrox)

1. Even though I feel some sympathy for Just Step Sideways (I understand a need to set the record straight and correct a perceived injustice) and even though the pragmatic part of me wants to vote for this because it will make this go away, I cannot. Moving past my opinion that this was certainly a formal warning, "within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal" makes it seem like there was a simple disagreement and someone disliked a member's actions. That happens all the time. What doesn't happen regularly is being kicked off arbcom-en-b while others discuss and vote on your conduct, which is what happened.
   As someone who wasn't on the Committee in 2021 & 2023 and as someone who isn't 100% sure that the suspension was the right thing to do, I don't feel an instinctive need to defend the actions of those iterations – the fact that I am defending the original wording should maybe hint at the fact that I truly believe that that sentence was right and that this new wording would be misleading the Community. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstain (Suspension of Beeblebrox)

Arbitrator discussion (Suspension of Beeblebrox)

ArbCom is not infallible, and while we did not necessarily do anything procedurally incorrectly, we were not as succinct and clear as we should have been, which should be reflected in how we make our statements on-wiki (and off). Primefac (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by 142.113.140.146 at 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

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

• 142.113.140.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• 122141510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification 122141510
• diff of notification ScottishFinnishRadish

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

• Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to 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. Edit requests include RMs

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

• Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to 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. Edit requests exclude RMs and AfDs

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

• The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to 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. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed

I concur RMs are ERs. WP:Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves. This social concept is independent of technical details of which template is used. A RM requests to edit the title. An AfD requests an edit to blank the page or replace its contents with a redirect.

A 2023 "clarifying" motion actually repealed some other clarifying language. This may "contain a loophole". A repeal of a RM prohibition clause is taken to be license to participate in such RMs.

We need to settle this once and for all. Request 1 approves, while request 2 forbids (along with AfDs), edits to RMs.

@Ivanvector: Thanks for shortcuts. For non-RMs, is it claimed WP:ARBECR's "make edit requests" excludes Wikipedia:Edit requests § Further information needed? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I discovered WP:RMTR prohibiting discussion. Previous and current consensus opposes full RMs, so should RMTRs be declared allowed? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@122141510 and Sean.hoyland: If the issue is biased enforcement, I support a blanket prohibition. Let's nonsubjectively ECP all ECR talkpages. Leave typos to WP:CWERRORS 501. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I am not familiar with arbitration requests and have to find time to read through some previous arbitrations to get an idea of what decorum and normal cadence of conversation it. If this is closed solely on the basis of being submitted by an IP user I would look to open it again afterward. I am curious if a satisfactory answer for locking editors out of consensus conversations can be provided at this level – I do not think stating that WP:RM is different from WP:ER and/or claiming it's all self-evident is a compelling one. I would like at least 24-48 hours to submit a statement and would be annoyed if this request was already closed on a technicality by that time, as the onus would then be shifted onto to me to submit an otherwise redundant request. 122141510 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The Edit Request Wizard situationally prompts me to obtain consensus first. Consensus forming discussions can be a necessary component of edit requests and some level of consensus (between submitter and the processor of any successful request) is needed to process any edit request. 122141510 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

For those limited by time I believe my statement is effectively expounding on what I already said.

I don't buy the idea that a move request should not be considered as a type of edit request. Any change to an article is an edit. The idea there's a difference between between a WP:RM and a WP:ER is an argument based on bureaucratic pedantics than on shared reality. While there may be practical reasons for the bureaucratic decision to not consider an RM a type of ER, editors should always refuse to accept as immutable reality any status quo which begs credulity to a wider audience. User:ScottishFinnishRadish's "thems the breaks" rationale comments were effectively the opposite, which is why I expressed frustration in our exchange. (I want to make it clear that I have no animus towards ScottishFinnishRadish. I appreciate that no one seems to have been left with an impression of, or suggested, otherwise.)

Regarding the fact I mentioned systemic bias, I'm accusing this interpretation of WP:ECR of introducing unintentional systemic bias, in at least two ways;

1. This interpretation of ECR will have unintended lapses in enforcement such that systemic bias is reinforced.

For example, in a recent RM for an article under extended protection , my contribution [7] was never reverted. However, ScottishFinnishRadish reverted my contribution in the RM related to this arbitration. Under this interpretation of ECR, editors/administrators are less likely to notice and revert the contributions of junior editors in RMs if the editors agree with the existing consensus of senior editors, and more likely to notice and revert the contributions of junior editors if they disagree with an existing consensus of senior editors. In effect and especially over a long time horizon, junior editors can either agree and probably be included, or disagree and probably be excluded.

2. This interpretation of ECR will indirectly place difficult onuses on newer and less experienced editors to challenge consensus.

Quoting from my conversation with ScottishFinnishRadish; The policies as you are interpreting them can be taken as a bureaucratic manoeuvre by which a minority of editors can determine the topic of any contentious article – sure, the protection will eventually end, but not without shifting the WP:ONUS onto those who prefer a different title to build consensus, under more difficult conditions as consensus must be achieved from a much wider pool of editors. I am not sure I can expand on this while remaining relatively succinct – this is about as concise as I can get here, as I think the implications of this are wide-ranging and existential for Wikipedia as a project.

I'd like to note that at time of posting my reverted contribution is still the only non-comment contribution which has been made to the RM in question [8]. This can be taken any number of ways, of course, but I don't mean to suggest "this specific article doesn't merit ECR in the first place" so much as it's not obvious to me what the policy is intending to guard against here. I do not see any benefit to the interpretation of ECR as enforced by ScottishFinnishRadish, and have outlined in broad strokes what I believe are the drawbacks. 122141510 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland Regarding your response to my first point, I want to point out a disparity between your response and what I said. In the context of this situation, I accusing or implying editors are more likely to remove any contribution they individually disagree with, but are more likely to notice (and remove) any contribution which differs with the apparent current consensus, which makes it difficult to allow for consensus to ever change. I'm actually going to an extreme in assuming good faith and this assumption holds more water if we assume individual bias isn't a counfounding factor. Regarding your response to my second point, I again don't disagree in the big picture. What I've described can be abstracted as this is indeed generally how Wikipedia works, but specific to ECR, we cannot say that everyone is in the same boat in this situation. I stand by the idea that this situation places an additional onus on non-ECR users to have an influence on an article under what perhaps we might agree are more 'typical' Wikipedia conditions, but only after ECR users have had the benefit of a period of time to have an influence on an article under 'atypical' and arguably 'easier than typical' conditions. 122141510 (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier This is to the best of my recollection my first participation in an arbitration. I looked through a random selection of about 5 recent arbitration cases to get an idea of how these typically are handled and proceed, as well as the Arbitration guide to get an idea of things. I appreciate I've spoken above and beyond the question as addressed but the guide speaks to having as one of its objectives to take more of a long view than look only to resolve the immediate dispute. I felt I could explain my rationale for the comments in the conversation that @142.113.140.146 cited so as to get the ball rolling with their request and that I already had a longer view in mind when I made them. The brunt of the argument about whether an RM is an ER, as I understand it, is one to address with regards to the points 142.113.140.146 has made and whether there is or isn't an apparent contradiction or lack of clarity when reconciling some rules/policies. 122141510 (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If I can add something in here that might be actionable – such that if it resolves that move requests are not edit requests, as much as it's obvious that that's the case to some senior Wikipedia editors, it doesn't seem like something that would be obvious to those less familiar with the site policies. While the top of the page indicates You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive), it's one of the examples I've apparently run into where the site lets me edit or contribute to something I'm apparently not supposed to be able to edit or contribute to. You may also need to consider creating a different template for move requests for these articles to make that even more obvious. 122141510 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone is supercool with an uninvolved IP opening a request for clarification in violation of ARBECR? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, the IP is asking about this discussion about this diff which is directly related to United States complicity in Gaza genocide. This seems like an internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions that is directly related to ARBPIA. This is your court so your rules, but this looks related to ARBPIA to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, the diff you presented is for an article that is extended-confirmed protected, but the topic area isn't covered by ECR so you can still engage fully on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, one data point for you is this. I've made ~800 ECR reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

RMs are not edit requests as they usually require consensus, something that is especially true for contentious topics (WP:EDITXY is pretty clear on this and the fact that edit requests shouldn't be used to attract attention to a post, even in the name of finding consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: the thought definitely crossed my mind, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't sure. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree and Primefac: is the IP allowed to open this request? M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It used to be that consensus forming discussions (AfD, RFC, RM etcetera) were specifically listed out and excluded but that was amended in favor of the current restriction to straightforward edit requests a la WP:EDITXY. Consensus forming discussions are self evidently not edit requests.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@122141510: Once an editor is made aware of the restriction, WP:ARBECR and WP:EDITXY do not allow for controversial edit requests and so no consensus forming discussions are needed or necessary. While there is some degree of (EC) editorial discretion involved, for example, requesting clarification of an unclear edit request, the matter will otherwise be dealt with by EC editors.Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This request asserted that an RM is an ER and I do not think we need to stray far away from that question, which has effectively been answered.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I initially intended to warn the IP editor about ARBPIA, but then realised that the subject requires discussion anyway, and so their input is indeed constructive and should be appreciated. I wouldn't be comfortable with shutting the discussion now for formal reasons, as it's not really about PIA but about ECR, and it needs to be had.

The purpose of ECR is to let experienced editors work on controversial articles in relative peace by minimising disruption caused by inexperienced editors, socks, SPAs, etc. The idea is only to let them make a simple suggestion ("Change X to Y" per sources) where the response would be positive (Yes, done) or negative (No, not done). It was not the idea to let them start lengthy discussions on whether they like article titles or not. I'm all for making it absolutely clear that move requests, deletion requests, merge requests, etc., are disallowed under ARBECR. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wide-ranging discussions involving heated debates between users are, quite bluntly, entirely separate from a simple "please change this" edit request - I think it's fairly clear that RMs are not mere edit requests, and should be subject to the same ECR protection as virtually everything else in the area.

There's already been enough off-wiki coordination/pressure/etc from various groups relating to the ARBPIA area. The last thing any of us want is a loophole allowing brand-new SPAs, POV-warriors, and/or sock farms from Twitter, Reddit, news comment sections, and so on to flood the topic area with even more WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct than it already has. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

While initiating RM discussions are not "please change X to Y (because Z)" edit requests, such discussions do not encompass all requests to change the title of a page. In other words, there should be no prohibition on a non-EC editor making a uncontroversial request to move a page. For example if the current title contains a typo or has become outdated or ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, for interest, I don't find your 'introducing unintentional systemic bias' #1 argument very compelling. Enforcement of ECR is a stochastic process. It relies on other stochastic processes. There is a lot of randomness in there in terms of editors, their watchlists, their editing times, their alertness and personal biases etc. It doesn't seem like the kind of system that can easily produce systematic bias and I have not seen any evidence that it is doing that. The notion that ECR enforcement by an individual is partly a function of the individual's bias is speculation. It's an empirical question and I don't think there is currently an evidence-based reason to give it much credence. But if we assume it's true, then a solution is to increase the population size of the people actively enforcing ECR. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510, as for argument #2, this argument doesn't appear to have a dependency on ECR. It seems more like a description of how Wikipedia works for everyone. Articles and content acquire a kind of inertial mass over time. A single extendedconfirmed editor may create a new article with a title that includes a biased or contentious word. There is no real barrier or cost for this. You see it a lot in the PIA topic area. The new article instantly acquires a kind of inertial mass as soon as the editor hits save. After that, it takes work to move it or change its state. Editors choose how much energy they are willing to expend on the effort. It isn't easier for some and harder for others to become extendedconfirmed or change an article. Everyone is in the same boat. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that it is not obvious to me, now that we have several years of data and experience that post-dates the imposition of ECR, whether non-extendedconfirmed users should be able to do anything at all, including submitting edit requests, in contentious topic areas with ECR restrictions. Do the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs? I have no idea. Constructive edit requests certainly exist. It seems like the kind of question that probably has an answer to be found somewhere in the data, and it would be useful to know the answer. It would be interesting to see how many edit requests are successful, how many are declined, how many talk page comments are simply reverted, how often people search for ways to tunnel through the EC barrier, often it seems because getting to the other side is mission critical for them etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, only ~100+ ECR reverts for me. ~700+ for Selfstudier. Lots of noise from new users, not so much signal it seems. I do wonder sometimes what would happen if all articles (or maybe half for an A/B test) with "ArbCom_Arab-Israeli_enforcement" or "Contentious_topics/Arab-Israeli_talk_notice" templates (without relatedcontent=yes) were extendedconfirmed protected, including the talk pages, and edit requests from non-EC editors were either not allowed or had to go through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. It's probably not a great situation when I find myself wondering whether the very experienced sockpuppets of topic banned users my computer suggests are there, might actually be an asset compared to all the noise. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Zero0000, it's true that quite a few edit-requests are perfectly reasonable and involve correction of minor errors. What I have observed is that, in practice, people do not revert corrections of minor errors by IPs and non-extendedconfirmed editors even when they make the change themselves. They get a pass, another somewhat complicated and subjective aspect of the current system. Anyway, to clarify, I'm not proposing anything specific because I have no idea how best to achieve what ECR is supposed to achieve. But being in a position to make evidence-based decisions about restrictions might help. As for "it would not reduce the number of non-edit-requests that should be reverted", I'm biased towards simple technical solutions with no subjectivity or wiggle room, so in my mind, a ban on talk page edit-requests or a centralization of edit requests would need to be accompanied by talk pages being extendedconfirmed protected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a non-EC adding an edit-request like "Fix the bad spelling in the title". However, an RM is a formal process to determine consensus on the result of a move proposal. The request and the resulting consensus are two different things. In addition, disruption in formal processes is more damaging than ordinary discussion. For these reasons, the ban on non-EC participation in RMs should remain. Zero^talk 09:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Quite a few edit-requests are perfectly reasonable and involve correction of minor errors. The proposal to ban edit-requests altogether would be counterproductive. Not only would it mean that non-EC editors have no legal way to notify us of such errors, but it would not reduce the number of non-edit-requests that should be reverted. Zero^talk 02:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The exceptions to limited bans cover this clarification request ("addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself" [emphasis in original]; also "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban"). If we're going to start telling new users that they're not even allowed to ask if they're allowed to ask whether or not they're allowed to edit, then let's just archive WP:ANYONE now and acknowledge that it was good almost-quarter-century run of having principles.

As for the actual clarification request: I would like to suggest that it's not violating the restriction for a non-EC editor to request a move and explain their rationale, as it's not really functionally different from making an edit request with a rationale, at least up to the point that the requester publishes the request. However, once they have made the request then ARBECR dictates that they cannot participate in any subsequent discussion, and of course they cannot add comments to requested moves started by other editors. This is meant to be a comment on how the restriction is worded, not whether or not it's a sensible approach whatsoever to impose this labyrinth of contradictory restrictions on new editors just because they're new. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

ECR should prohibit RMs because new editors are unlikely to start helpful RMs, and likely to start time-wasting ones. ECR exists at least in part because despite good intentions, new editors are unlikely to know enough about editing to edit in this topic area non-disruptively. Levivich (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

• Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. This clarification was removed by a motion that removed the right to "post constructive comments", so it was no longer necessary to clarify that, yes, RMs are internal discussions, and no, RMs are not edit requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Agreed; RMs are not edit requests. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  The IP is asking a general question, and last I checked ARCA is not a page covered by ARBECR. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with PF --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
2. 5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

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

• My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Volunteer Marek
• Piotrus

Information about amendment request

• Requesting the removal of the bans described in 5.1 and 5.2

My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.

• The first issue was my "desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.
• The second issue was my participation in the arbitration case, "extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [9]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. I would never make such comments again.
• Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page Slava Ukraini that existed in such version and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and forgetting about all unpleasant things here. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [10]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said this on AE.

I would like to ask to repeal this old AE restriction, which has been imposed to additionally enforce remedy 5.1 by Arbcom. Keeping this restriction and removing 5.1 would not make much sense I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Responses

• @Barkeep49. Thank you very much! Unlike the topic ban, the interaction ban does not prevent me from doing anything I want in the project. I would rather avoid these users anyway. For me, removing the interaction ban is only a matter of feeling myself as an editor in good standing. This is very important for me, but I can function without it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Link by @HouseBlaster. Yes, I agree. This is an unusual case when my positive relationships with two other contributors were deemed as disruptive. I agree they were arguably disruptive as something that had led to my unhelpful comments during the arbitration. But I do not see a reason to continue keeping this interaction ban right now. And to be honest, my positive relationships with these users are strongly overstated. Admittedly, I do not like Piotrus, and for a good reason. It is another matter that I can easily collaborate with him, especially given his immense experience. VM? I like his erudition, but he is not my "buddy". Sure thing, I am not going to support them anywhere. Why would I do it? To be a glutton for punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [11] (Speaking on my comment in this diff, it appears in diff #5 of the FOF as a proof of my wrongdoing, but it was merely my honest answer to a ping by another user who asked me a legitimate question, and I happily striked through my comment after a clarification). I thought mere fact that some of them talked with me during the case was an indication that I am not doing anything seriously wrong. And it was a civil discussion, even though I admittedly assumed bad faith by the off-wiki party and good faith by VM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else [12],[13]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• @HouseBlaster. Actually, after having this experience, I would rather not support anyone in any administrative discussions, just to be safe. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Comments that do not support anyone specific, such as [14], I believe would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Aoidh. Yes, the iban is not hugely restrictive. I can even edit same pages as Piotrus and VM, just should not interact with them per WP:IBAN. Although I never had problems interacting with them on any article talk pages, and we rarely reverted each other's edits. The issue is my comments during administrative discussions that could be regarded as supporting these users. I fully understand this now and would never do it again, even if the iban was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• If you think that anything in my statements was incorrect, please tell, and I can provide additional explanations. If the motion will not pass, and I will come with same request next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not only I never met Piotrus and VM in "real life", but I did not interact with them off-wiki or through email during last 10+ years. I am not saying anything about EEML case, per this advice by Barkeep49. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back. Once again, I did not say anything about EEML per this advice by Barkeep49. I believe my statement was true. Yes, I never met them physically/in person/in real life. Yes, I communicated with them through email, more than 10 years ago, before this old case. Yes, I interacted with them on many pages. Other than that, I do not have any personal connections with them. I did not interact with them in any social media like Facebook. I never talked with them in person, over the phone, Zoom, etc. I do not know where they work because I am not interested in any personal information. And frankly, I do not care about them. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Sdrqaz. Thank you! Yes, I do not really see why this iBan would be needed. I do have an editing overlap with VM in Wikipedia:RUSUKR and some other areas. These subjects are debated at article talk pages, and VM participate there. As a practical matter, why can't I say on an article talk page that I disagree (or agree) with such and such argument by VM because [an explanation]? What harm that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Motion 3. Yes, I do ask to remove the wider topic ban issued on WP:AE, please. Otherwise, this does not make any sense. I thought it was clear from my statement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:. Thank you very much! Would you also consider supporting motion 3? That wider topic ban was introduced specifically to ensure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would not be violated. Hence, it is not logical keeping it if the original ban will be lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

With regard to remedy 5.2 (motion 2)... Admittedly, I do not understand it. What exactly this is going to prevent? If I come again asking to remove 5.2 next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Friendly nudge to @Moneytrees, Firefly, and Cabayi: Motion 3 (to repeal the AE tban) is currently neither passing nor failing, and this ARCA been open for a month :)

@ArbCom Clerks: Because motion 2 is broader than motion 1, I think motion 2 is passing (and therefore motion 1 is failing), but I could be wrong (the only vote counting I have done as a clerk concerns singular motions). Would someone be able to confirm that is the case? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.

My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.

TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?

My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.

TFD (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.

I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.

If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: is bringing up the truly ancient past. As someone who is on friendly terms with all three editors and frequently was in discussions about the Ukraine war where MVBW and VM were reasoning witH editors who thought the Russians could do no wrong, I can assure you that Piotrus was in entirely different topic areas at the time, and told me he lost contact with MVBW after the email list case. It is true that MVBW often agreed with VM on Ukraine, but then so did I. VM did his homework on Ukraine and every time I checked him, he was completely correct. I will also add that when I went back to the war on Ukraine article after the HiP case I found more than one source misrepresentation in the limited area of casualty numbers that I was trying to update, and vast resistance to edits to the "stable version". So I regret to say that in my informed opinion the sanctions were not only unnecessary but harmed the encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• @The Four Deuces: this is someone else's appeal so I am going to give that rather specious argument the silence it deserves. I'll just note you are not disclosing your interactions with me either, for that matter. I am not saying you should have; sometimes ancient is just ancient, is all, and that is true in both cases. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

EEML is relevent and "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." appears to be misleading at best and a lie by omission at worst. EEML is definitely relevent here, if MVBW doesn't want to speak about it thats fine but their refusal to address the relationship in a forthright and honest manner has to count agaisnt them. If they can't be honest about their connections I have no faith that those connections aren't going to continue influencing their behavior going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification MVBW, I find your clarification to be forthright and honest and to the best of my knowledge cover all of the ground that needs to be covered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

• Created from [15] on request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Recuse (I expressed my opinion on the iban on the PD talk page). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by SilverLocust 💬 21:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion 1	7	1	2		Cannot pass	Cannot pass due to a competing motion passing
Motion 2	6	3	1		·
Motion 3	4	1	3		·

Notes

• Re: HouseBlaster's question — I consider motion 2 to be prevailing over motion 1. They differ only in whether to lift the interaction ban. With all active arbitrators voting, there are 4 who prefer to lift them both ("first choice"), 3 who oppose lifting the interaction ban, and 3 who express indifference (by "equal choice" or abstention). That's a majority of 4–3. SilverLocust 💬 05:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Recuse I was involved with one of the articles in this case. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• I had mixed feelings about the topic ban which is why I didn't end up voting for it. I am open to repealing the topic ban, but not the interaction ban as a first step. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Pppery for that. I'll note that it seems to have been placed as an individual administrator action by Tamzin and as it is a year old (as of today) I'd support repealing that as part of the motion given the broad overlap, but will wait for further feedback before doing so, though admittedly the justification for the topic ban being necessary a year ago is strengthened by that action). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am not immediately opposed to this request; there was cause at the time to implement these remedies but it was by no means a central part of the original case. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Noting proposal of AE topic ban repeal below. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Clerical note: I have removed Barkeep49's votes from the count as he has resigned. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Not enacted (superseded by motion 2) - SilverLocust 💬 03:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

As explained above I thought our factual basis for the topic ban was weaker than for the i-ban. I ultimately didn't vote for or against it because I decided a firmer outcome to the case was better than a milder one but this particular case I wasn't sure it was ever necessary. I think a year on and given the assurances here by MVBW that we can revoke it, also knowing that should it ever be a problem again that an individual admin or AE could swiftly reimpose it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

1. This seems to be a reasonable request especially when it can be reimposed as necessary if it becomes an issue. Also support repealing the AE sanction, though if there is objection from editors on that point I'd be open to reconsidering that point. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
2. I am not sure the iban needs to stay in place, but otherwise I am not finding great issue with this motion. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

   I am making this my second choice to a motion (below) to repeal both bans. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

3. Second choice. I'm not convinced that the interaction ban is necessary either, but this is better than nothing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
4. I'm happy to extend MVBW some rope. Ultimately, the best result all round from a topic ban is that the topic-banned editor spends some time contributing constructively elsewhere and then comes back after the requisite period and is once again an asset. The second best is that the topic ban keeps an otherwise productive editor away from an area where they can't see their own bias but I don't think MVBW is that sort of editor. They have made positive contributions elsewhere instead of just sitting out the ban or testing its limits and their appeal shows a level of self-awareness that hopefully means they won't make the same mistakes if given a second chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
5. Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
6. Having carefully reviewed this request, and the case itself, I think a second chance is appropriate. ArbCom repealing a TBAN doesn't mean that AE can't impose a new TBAN should fresh issues arise. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
7. per Maxim. firefly ( t · c ) 07:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Given the history and leadup to the case, I am very very wary of repealing the majority of remedies from it; in particular given how past granted appeals/repeals of remedies contributed to escalations and further conflict. However, this was a very harsh sanction and MV's appeal is not bad. I still cannot support the appeal but I will not oppose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• I think this is something I'd support, but I'd like to give editors more time to comment before doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I had time to look over the history of the case through the lens of this amendment request, and this request has been open a week which I think is a sufficient amount of time. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• If anything I would rather it be the other way around; the recent AE topic ban would appear to overlap with this one, but the interaction ban does not appear to be a problem any more. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  The AE topic ban was a year ago and happened only a couple weeks after the case closed so I don't think it outrageous to be appealed (and rescinded) now else we should have made the minimum time to wait longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appear to have misread the timestamps. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Noting addition of links and changing commas to parentheses for easier parsing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Enacted - SilverLocust 💬 03:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. First choice. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
2. First choice. I am not convinced that the interaction ban serves any preventative effect; I think that based on this appeal and the unusual nature of the interaction ban (effectively for serving as a "fan club"), its usefulness has worn out and My very best wishes understands what went wrong. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
3. First choice. Cabayi (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
4. First choice; see comments above. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
5. Essentially per Sdrqaz. Equal choice with just removing the topic bans. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
6. Equal choice with Motion 1, but I essentially agree with Sdrqaz on this. firefly ( t · c ) 07:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

   Per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

2. This would be a mistake. The Iban can be looked at in the future but I am skeptical of appealing it at this time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
3. Given the history that led to its implementation, nothing in the request is compelling enough to warrant removal of the interaction ban, which does not appear to be unduly restrictive. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Noting addition of links and changing commas to parentheses for easier parsing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Enacted - SilverLocust 💬 03:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Given that a repeal of the narrower Polish topic ban is on the cards, it seems pointless to me to repeal that and have a broader topic ban (which covers the Polish topic ban) in place, sending My very best wishes back to square one. I am generally in favour of the Committee not interfering in Community affairs, but given that the topic ban was carried out as arbitration enforcement, it is well within our remit to repeal as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

   If I had understood it to be an AE consensus rather than individual sanction I'd have incorporated it until my original motion (as an individual it could have just been "undone" as a normal undoing). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

2. Per my comment in the first motion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
3. As per above. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
4. As Maxim says above, this is still a contentious topic and if there are more issues it's relatively straightforward to re-impose the topic ban or other proportional remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

If one would like a restriction lifted, one should ask --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Moved to abstain, striking number. Primefac (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Per my above votes but I truthfully don’t feel very strongly. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
2. I agree with Guerillero, but not enough to fully oppose. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
3. I agree with myself and Money, but I will stand aside and let this pass --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Please note that this is meant to be in addition to the two prior motions. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Lima Bean Farmer at 20:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Original topic ban made before switch to contentious topics

AE appeal that modified the topic ban

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

• Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I need clarification on how I would properly appeal a topic ban. According to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, after a year a topic ban in contentious topics wouldn’t need community review. However, what makes this complicated is that the initial topic ban was imposed by one administrator but a later appeal was decided by AE consensus. It is not clear what level of appeal or how I would go about removing the topic ban and would appreciate any clarification. Thank you in advance!

Commenting as closer of the appeal. I see the logic that an appeal's denial at AE is tantamount to a consensus-of-AE-admins sanction. However, that would create a perverse incentive not to appeal in the first year of an individually imposed sanction. Why appeal to AE at 11 months if a decline would strip you of your right to appeal to an individual admin at 12 months?

I think the only way to avoid that paradox is to say that declines only count as AE-consensus sanctions if the AE admins a) explicitly assume the action as a consensus action, and/or b) impose new, stricter sanctions in the course of declining. (Here, I imposed a new sanction with Dreamy's consent and other admins' support, but it was narrower than Dreamy's original.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it correct to read WP:CTOP as saying that more or less any admin can unilaterally undo any unilateral CTOP action on appeal provided that 1 year has passed? If so, it would be nice it it were more clear. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I remember, this sanction is not subject to the 1 year rule because it was made before the switch to contentious topics. This is based on WP:CTOP#Continuity. As such, it needs to follow the rules as if it was a sanction made less than a year ago. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac, given the appeal and subsequent modification was held at AE after the switch to contentious topics, does the modification of the topic ban now prevent it from being seen as a topic ban that is exempt from the 1 year rule?

I would argue that the topic ban modification doesn't necessarily change the 1 year rule exemption (unless I've missed something that's said in the document).

Asking this to you specifically because you said this is now modifyable after a year and I don't know if this because you see the modification as removing the exemption to the 1 year rule or if the modification of the scope represents a entirely new sanction. I don't see this as a new sanction because in the WP:AELOG it is styled as a amendment of the scope and my original topic ban is not struck. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As to whether an appeal should be granted from my point of view, I have not had a chance to review recent contributions so don't have an opinion at this time.

If my comment is desired on that, let me know and I should be able to do that next week. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've provided some thoughts at AE where an appeal has been filed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

• Recuse as I've made a statement here and imposed this topic ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Declining an appeal at AE is not imposing a sanction, so the "no appeals" language does not apply, unless per #Appeals and amendments A rough consensus of administrators ... may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals ... may be submitted. Per the procedural summary, then, it is appealable after a year and may be extended, but would not strictly require a consensus at AE to lift. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will have to re-review the issue; if the ban was in place before the switch to CTOP then it would probably fall under the old procedure but I will have to check. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per other comments, declining an appeal should not reset the clock or change the methods of appeal, but a significant modification or positive reaffirmation should do so. In this particular case, I agree with Tamzin's proposal to not consider this either of the latter two options as it narrowed the topic ban; once could almost consider it to be a partial lift of the original sanction. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• As I noted to some of my colleagues recently, I miss ACDS sometimes (if I had to start somewhere, the cooler name ...). Anyways, my understanding of this is that as the AE topic ban (changing to post-1992) was carried out under the new contentious topics procedures, it superseded and replaced the old DS topic ban. As it was imposed at AE, the one-year rule does not apply and a formal appeal would need to be successful (ie consensuses at AE/AN or a motion here).
  On the broader policy question, I agree that declinations of appeals by themselves do not reset the clock, but since this appeal led to a new sanction being imposed, that is a material change in circumstances. @Red-tailed hawk: I feel like the procedure is relatively clear: only single-administrator sanctions and indefinite blocks can be undone in this manner (see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Procedural summary too).
  I think that this status quo is okay, unless I've grievously misinterpreted things. There may be issues with interpreting whether something is narrower or broader than another sanction, which makes me think that changing it isn't necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• @Red-tailed hawk: That is what the committee was trying to do, as someone who was very much in disagreement on this point. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: That is probably the most logical way to cut the knot --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would hold that appeals still need to go to AE/AN; i.e., that they cannot be heard by any single administrator (without Dreamy's consent). That's because the one-year rule does not apply to the original sanction (under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Continuity), and I would hold that the AE appeal narrowed the original sanction rather than imposed a new sanction. @Dreamy Jazz: if you don't have time to review this on the merits, you can if you want consent to other administrators changing the sanction on their own, under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  This seems to be largely moot given that Lima Bean Farmer has appealed at AE. Does anyone (@Primefac and Guerillero: as folks who expressed a preference to possibly change the procedures) feel like we should keep this open to amend the procedures, in case this comes up again in the future? If not, I would suggest closing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fine closing, I have a feeling that the number of individuals sanctioned under DS who are unsuccessful and have their appeal modified at AE will be steadily decreasing over time. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Cinderella157 at 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

German war effort arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban

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

• Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban
  • A lifting of the topic ban imposed.

I simply ask the community ArbCom to review whether this ban continues to serve any reasonable purpose consistent with the prevailing WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have learnt to discern that some things are difficult to substantiate and are therefore better left unsaid. I am not a project coordinator and have no foreseeable aspirations to become one. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ToBeFree, the absence of K.e.coffman is news to me. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The sanction was imposed as a remedy for personal attacks against a particular editor. ArbCom determined that I could not substantiate particular allegations and that in consequence, these rose to being personal attacks. If I was inclined, I might have continued to make such attacks against the editor of record in areas unrelated to the Tban or despite the Tban. I have not. I submit, that ArbCom's determination that the editor of record had not engaged in misconduct was sufficient remedy to prevent further similar allegations/personal attacks.

As noted, I have been actively editing in several contentious topic areas, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Indo-Pakistani wars - areas known to foster editor misconduct an personal attacks. I have become more discerning in how I deal with perceived misconduct or whether I deal with it at all. Where I have had occasion to raise issues of conduct, I have been more discerning and circumspect as to how and where such matters are dealt with. My conduct in doing so has not been seen by the community as being personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate - certainly not rising to the level necessitating sanction. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As some of the arbitrators have noted below, it is the ArbCom rather than the broader community that would consider whether to terminate or modify one of ArbCom's own remedies. Given that Cinderella157 filed his appeal request on this particular page, it is likely that he was aware of this fact, and that his use of the term "community" either was simply inartful, or perhaps was meant as a suggestion that non-arb community members might wish to comment on his request. In any event, if he wasn't already aware of the proper procedure, he is now.

What would be needed next is some explanation of why Cinderella157 believes the sanction no longer serves a reasonable purpose. Simply saying so without a word of explanation will certainly not succeed. In making his case, I suggest he should also bear in mind that when the German war effort case was decided six years ago, none of the current arbitrators were on the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I was on the Committee during this case and this sanction has been bothering me somewhat. Some points:

• The topic ban: It was proposed in case /Evidence that Cinderella157 could not edit WWII topics neutrally because they are an "apologist" for Nazi Germany (see this "Apologetics" section). This was a strong claim for which we should expect strong proofs. Unfortunately, very little evidence was then provided, with the principal diffs on topic neutrality being:
  • this disagreement re the qualifications of authors of a specific WWII history book;
  • this statement that historical re-enactment society volunteers might or might not all be sympathisers of the cause they re-enact; and
  • this evidence section by Cinderella157 which relevantly states: My position is that WP must find a middle ground in dealing with events of WW2 and particularly biographies IMO - that is, a position that does not glorify or apoligise (on the one hand) but which does not vilify without substance (in the case of individuals as opposed to the regime). I don't entirely agree with these sentiments but wouldn't describe them as worthy of a topic ban from WWII.

Perhaps reflecting the paucity of hard evidence, the Committee made no reference to these diffs in the Decision and no Finding of Fact regarding Cinderella157's neutrality in this topic.

• Personal attacks: Separately, Cinderella157 make this comment during the case, which was correctly perceived as a personal attack on another editor. Evidence was also presented of a difficult relationship with that editor over a long period (see here and here. The Committee made a Finding of Fact on personal attacks here. I mention this because disruptive interpersonal relationships between editors in the same topic area can sometimes lead to disruption of the topic itself. However the normal responses to disruptive interpersonal relations or personal attacks are interaction bans or blocks. Neither was imposed in this case, and again given the passage of time it seems the issue has resolved. If a personal attack was made at some future point it would more appropriately be responded to with an i-ban or a block, rather than a topic ban from any specific set of articles.
• Progress since the ban: Cinderella157 breached the topic ban once in 2019 and was blocked for 5 days. Since then have since made around 9,000 edits to military history articles, seemingly without issue. Their edit history and talkpages seem to suggest competent engagement with complex and controversial topics including the Russo-Ukrainian War, and no issues with apologetics or personal attacks.

Apologies if all this seems like a relitigation of the actual case. Fwiw I'm not an editor of WWII history and have never interacted with Cinderella157 or anyone else from this case in any other topic. I also don't doubt the sincerity of the editor who originally lodged this case, or their multiyear commitment to improving Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. Their evidence against some others, for example LargelyRecyclable was impeccable and justified the ban that we imposed.

The reason for posting the above re Cinderella157 is simply that this topic ban has stuck in my mind over several years as a sanction that probably didn't need to be made. So long as they didn't seem to care, neither did I. But now they've asked for it to be lifted it seemed reasonable to take a minute to support that request. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To somewhat clarify the above: the principal point I'm making is that the topic ban was adopted as a misplaced response to a personal attack. There was no real evidence that Cinderella157 was unable to edit this topic neutrally. There's also no evidence of ongoing personal attacks. On these bases I've always considered this topic ban unnecessary and this ARCA was a good opportunity to say so. :)

Beyond that, agree its up to Cinderella157 to provide a more substantial justification for its removal than they currently have. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In passing this ARCA has been open a couple of weeks, not wanting to speak for the committee but am concerned that it might have been overlooked given the morass of the ARBPIA discussion below. If the remaining non-voting committee members have a moment it would be great to hear from them for or against the motion below. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support waiting for Coffman's statement for two weeks, but the reason is simply to provide all sides fair opportunity to be heard. However, if there must be an answer as to whether the "timing of the appeal has anything to do with Coffman's absence", it can't be anything other than a resounding no per WP:AGF. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not object to the T-ban being lifted with the conditions outlined in the motion. Perhaps Cinderella157 has indeed matured in their interactions. For background, I had limited contact with Cinderella157 prior to the Arbitration case, except for a few instances where they attacked me out of the blue: [16], or joined in LargelyRecyclable's arguments with me: Talk:World War II reenactment#Recent edit.

It was Cinderella157's behavior during and after the case that was more of a concern. As the case was concluding, Cinderella157 attempted to re-litigate the entire case on the PD's talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision#Conduct of KEC -- in 11 subsections, all about my behavior. From there, they linked to a separate, 9-000 word document, with more diffs & links: User:Cinderella157/GWE evidence suppliment. That seemed overly obsessive and concerned me greatly at the time.

After the case, the issues included edit-warring against me at the same Waffen-SS reenactment page: 19 June 2019, 20 June 2019, 1 July 2019, and refusal to listen to advice from AE admins: [17]; Cinderella157's response: [18]. They also ignored a prior warning from another admin, Bishonen, pertaining to the topic area: March 2019.

Cinderella157 has demonstrated some poor conduct regarding their T-ban after it was instituted, but not as far as I know after 2019. I hope that's a good sign for the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• Cinderella157, this is not the place for the community to review a sanction put in place by the Arbitration Committee; you need to convince us that the sanction is no longer necessary. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am in support of lifting the topic ban following the explanations by Cinderella157; while the K.e.coffman editing is on the surface problematic, I see no reason not to believe Cinderella157 that they were unaware of this editing gap, making it more of a coincidence than anything. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Short of the community taking the drastic step of amending arbpol to allow it, there is no way to appeal sanctions imposed by the committee to the community --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you very much for your explanation and context, Euryalus. Cinderella157, I think that Committee members would find it easier to handle this appeal if you explained further on why you think that this sanction is no longer necessary. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear K.e.coffman's thoughts about this request and have now invited them here. I'd additionally like to know if the timing of the appeal has anything to do with K.e.coffman's current absence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've now had a closer look at the XTools statistics and find this strange. K.e.coffman has had low edit counts for a while, but an entire month without edits only occurred once before, 2020-11. Now that K.e.coffman has not edited during the entirety of July, we suddenly have an appeal about a ban issued for attacks against them. I don't like this, even if it's a coincidence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Cinderella157, thanks for the clarification and sorry for my misinterpretation. No concern regarding this from my side then, but I'd still like to wait (at least a week or two) to hear K.e.coffman's opinion if possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the quick and detailed response, K.e.coffman! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I am open to suspending the TBAN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I am as well. While I think it's reasonable to wait to hear from K.e.coffman, I don't think we need to delay making a decision by up to two weeks. - Aoidh (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Enacted - SilverLocust 💬 23:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Proposed based on a previous suspension motion that appears to have good language, as three arbitrators have expressed support for lifting or suspending the TBAN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
2. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
4. Aoidh (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
5. Cabayi (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
6. This seems to strike a nice balance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
7. Based on Cinderella157's response to me and Euryalus's explanation of the context, I am comfortable voting for this (and a straight removal instead of suspension, though I understand why this path has been chosen as it is relatively low-risk). Sorry for how long that this has taken. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

• ...

Initiated by Robert McClenon at 00:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience
2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science

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

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience

• Change "Theories which have a following" to "Articles about theories which have a following"

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science

• Change "Theories which have a substantial following" to "Articles about theories which have a substantial following"

A careful reading of Principles 16 and 17 shows that these principles refer to theories, but they are meant to refer to the Wikipedia articles about these theories. Principles 15 and 18 appear to be worded properly.

User:Aiodh - I am trying to mediate a content dispute about the Genesis creation narrative. The view that the Genesis creation narrative is a scientific or historical account is pseudoscience that is self-labeled as creation science. The wording of the principles is not currently an issue and is not likely to become an issue, but I was trying to be proactive to ensure that the applicable principles would be clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

As I commented in two similar threads earlier this year, any needed clarification of English Wikipedia policies and guidelines is best achieved through discussion on our policy and guideline pages, rather by seeking to modify or clarify the fine points of principles adopted in arbitration cases from two decades ago. After all, at least in theory, the ArbCom is not supposed to be creating policy in the first place.

The wording of principles adopted in virtually any arbitration case will typically contain language that could with hindsight be made more precise, particularly when the principles are applied to situations that the drafters did not consider when they wrote the decision. If the Committee is routinely asked to review and rewrite the language in every such case, it will be busy indeed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon stated here WP:DRN#Genesis creation narrative discussion that CTOP procedure applies in Genesis creation narrative, but no matter the wording of Principles 15-18, that would be confusing it with Creation science which is clearly different upon cursory reading. Decline the ARCA on the ground the matter is unrelated to CTOP. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This hasn't been a problem for the last 20 years, isn't currently a problem and would require a very particular set of circumstances in which it even might be a problem in the future. This is just wasting community and committee time. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Thryduulf. This request is merely making busy work to heighten a profile. Note:

"High profile, low forehead". SerialNumber54129 10:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

• I mean, I guess we can technically fix those. My worry is that by amending them, we will be giving the imprimatur/endorsement of the 2024 ArbCom on the remainder of the principles' substance, which I'm not willing to do. The 2006 ArbCom was willing to adopt content principles (like these) in ArbCom cases; I don't think the 2024 ArbCom would do so. Unlike actionable remedies, principles are not binding and may fall out of date with time, and ArbCom does not generally repeal or amend principles that no longer reflect policy or practice. Therefore, I am leaning toward declining this request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• Has this been an issue in some way that requires clarification or amendment? - Aoidh (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline - That two principles in an almost 18-year-old case could be worded better is not something that needs to be addressed if the meaning is reasonably clear and the wording is neither causing nor is likely to cause any confusion. - Aoidh (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Principles state what the committee making the decision thought of the world at the time. Many from the last 20 years (!) do not match what a modern committee would pass. I don't see a reason to change these. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Decline --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with the above; nothing to do here. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Decline I agree that procedurally this is so old and minor as to not warrant our intervention. On the merits, I also don't think that the principles as written are wrong. Obviously it means articles about theories; we're Wikipedia and our job is to write articles about things. That the ArbCom of 2006 did not follow the best legal writing practices does not invalidate the obvious meaning. We're not a court, and thus have the right to be a little "loosey goosey" if need be. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Selfstudier at 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area of conflict"

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

• Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [19]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area of conflict"
  • Change userspace to talkspace

To match WP:ECR (Idk if it is worth changing both to link to namespace 1).

@Barkeep49: @Zero0000: The discussion here refers (at the bottom)

@Zero0000: Not only. See Barkeep49 statement at the relevant AE complaint (still open) However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here. To be clear, my opinion is that ECR, being later, should take precedence but that's just me.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And now, the same technicality being referred to by another editor. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I am only "proposing" that this "technicality" which has not been identified by myself, be fixed up, I'm just initiating the paperwork, to the extent anyone thinks that it is required. What I want is that it not be available as a defense by non EC editors, currently two of them mentioning it, and I suspect more inbound if left unresolved. If there is another way to clean it up, I'm all ears. And @Doug Weller: has now raised the question indirectly as well https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=1237149351&oldid=1236465052#Why_does_ARPBIA_allow_userspace_as_an_exception? Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sir Kenneth Kho: Many thanks for clarifying my inept proposal. For me, though, ECR should function like a tban, "any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia" Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Depends what you mean by edge case, if you mean that it isn't usually a problem, sure. However recently, I don't know quite how to put it, there has been a sort of assault on ECR, which you could, at a pinch, just call wikilawyering. See for example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis and the comment by an admin there, "I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case – seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that this edit falls outside of the CT regime. We can drag this to ARCA if we have to, but just agreeing that the filer made a vexatious argument is easier." (I won't name them, since they don't want to be here, methinks). Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a small mismatch between the area of scope and ECR and perhaps arbcom wants to fix that. Perhaps it doesn't. I'm not sure why I am involved in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we have this request actually explained, please?

I don't see any contradiction between "userspace" in "area of conflict" and "talkspace" at ECR. They serve different purposes.

One place says that the "area of conflict" does not extend to userspace (which implies that it does extend to talkspace). ECR indicates that talkspace has some differences in restrictions compared to article space. Both these make sense and can be true at the same time. We definitely do not want the "area of conflict" to exclude talkspace, because then the ECR restrictions on talkspace would not apply to it.

Or maybe I missed the point entirely. Zero^talk 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Selfstudier: So a messy argument on some user's talk page is what counts as an explanation?

As I see it, Definition of the "area of conflict" defines which pages and edits are subject to editing restrictions in ARBPIA, and WP:ARBECR says what those restrictions are. I don't see any contradiction there, and it seems to me that changing "userspace" to "talkspace" in the former would remove article talk pages from the area of conflict and disable all the restrictions there. Zero^talk 02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Selfstudier: The contradiction you claim to exist actually does not exist. Let's start at ECR:

"The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas." So now, we ask, what is the "topic area" in the case of ARBPIA? That sentence has a footnote:

"The current topic areas under this restriction are listed as having the "extended confirmed restriction" in the table of active Arbitration Committee sanctions." So we click on that link and find a big table. ARBPIA is near the end. It says:

"The entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted; edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace." (my emphasis) So in fact ECR agrees with WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" that edits in userspace are not in the ARBPIA "topic area". Where is the contradiction?

I'll also repeat (please answer): You seem to be proposing that "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" at WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" be changed to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of talkspace". Why does that make any sense? You want to remove talkspace from the topic area?? Zero^talk 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor Selfstudier: If arbcom wish to undo the exclusion of userspace from the ARBPIA topic area, that's their decision, but your proposal does much more than that. Zero^talk 12:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If a change to the status of userspace is to be considered, I suggest that arbcom consider all CT topics and not just ARBPIA. Personally I don't understand why an editor should be forbidden from mentioning the topic in their own user space (unless they are actively disruptive there). For example, an editor who is approaching 500 edits may develop some text in their sandbox for insertion into articles once EC is achieved — isn't that perfectly reasonable? An editor who abuses this allowance (say, by excessive pings) can be dealt with easily. Zero^talk 04:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this revert I did a couple of days ago is a useful test. Is the revert valid or invalid under the remedies? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This amendment request came to my attention after @Doug Weller: pointed it to me, I believe I can provide some clarity for the arbitrators.

I think there is an error in the request as pointed out by @Zero0000: the intended request is likely "remove exception of userspace" instead of "change userspace to talkspace" in WP:PIA, and the opposing side would be "add exception of userspace" to WP:ECR.

The answer would depend on whether arbitrators intended WP:ECR A(1) to overrule or uphold WP:PIA 4(B), if there is an answer, we are done.

If arbitrators did not consider it at all, the strongest argument for the initiating side would be WP:BROADLY, as the broadest possible thing would be no exception to userspace.

I'm arguing in favor of the opposing side, the strongest argument would be WP:UOWN, as userspace is traditionally given broad latitude too, it seems that WP:ECR and WP:UOWN should have their own jurisdiction, and on the balance WP:ECR should not be excessively broad.

@Selfstudier: nicely pointed to WP:TBAN in support of the initiating side, but it is worth noting that WP:TBAN is intended to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive", while WP:GS is intended to "improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area", which applies here as WP:GS specifically includes "Extended confirmed restriction". Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@L235 I think Remedy 9 repeal is possibly long overdue, it was written in 2015, and it only reminds the obvious that admins can use indefinite blocks, which is true even outside CTOP. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that"

• #1 in the 'Definition of the "area of conflict"' applies CTOP, ECR and 1RR to all articles broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
• #2 in the 'Definition of the "area of conflict"' applies CTOP, ECR and 1RR applies to all other pages except userpages and user talk pages if 'General sanctions upon related content' applies.
• 'General sanctions upon related content' requires that before CTOP, ECR and 1RR are applied to any page other than an article the enforcement templates have been added to that page which is "only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools" and that this can never happen on userpages or user talk pages.

Unless thought through extensively, there is a potential contradiction between what is defined as related content:

The 'Definition of the "area of conflict"' decision says that related content is edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace (that is, not articles).

'General sanctions upon related content' says it applies to related content but then redefines this is (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) which I suspect is intended to mean things defined above as 'related content' (not what is actually says which is pages not covered at all in the definition).

There is also the potential that any restiction (e.g. topic ban or 0RR) imposed under contentious topics cannot apply in userspace or could an editor be restricted for an edit on a userpage or user talk page.

To avoid the confusion and contradiction created I suggest that:

• "with the exception of userspace" is removed from the definition
• "(i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict)" is replaced with "(see [[#Definition of the "area of conflict"]])".
• Then either:
  • A decision is added to the index explicitly allowing CTOP restrictions to apply to edits made in relation to related content anywhere on Wikipedia to close the loophole currently exempting userspace completely. This would mean, however, that to be covered user talk pages would need to have the enforcement templates on them.

OR

• An exemption is added so that the requirements of "General sanctions upon related content" are not applied to editor restrictions imposed under CTOP. This would be the closest to the current intent where editors could be restricted from related content based on and applying to all of their editing in the topic area regardless of whether pages have the enforcement templates on them or not.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh: See discussion here regarding the exemption for userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos might remember more about the discussion and thinking behind this and my statement in general too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Callanecc, I'm afraid I don't recall in any greater depth than my comments at the workshop, sorry. The userspace exception was suggested by Huldra and Zero0000, who made some comments re: user talk pages that on review, look like reasonable concerns; whether or not they're still applicable I can't say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be easy to make it clear when mentioning talk space we meant user talk space and are not forbidding edit requests when the specific sanction allows them. Surely we don't want non-extended-confirmed-editors to be able add material to their own userspace they cannot added elsewhere. The purpose as I understand it of the 500 edits and 30 days is to enable them to learn our policies and guidelines and hopefully how to work constructively with others. I also think we don't want non-ecr users to use their talk space or the talk space of others to discuss the topic. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I would rather not name this but recently rsn into another editor with the same issue, but others convinced him he was wrong, although apparently he was right. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason the proposed motion uses "broadly interpreted" instead of the standard "broadly construed"? Is there a difference in meaning we are supposed to infer, or are they one and the same for purposes of this motion? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed Remedy 5: This is a hypothetical loophole situation, but one I believe is likely to happen at some point. Lets say there is a five paragraph section and User A places hidden comments covering paragraphs 2 and 3 during discussion at the talk page. User B thinks that paragraph 4 is also covered. If User B moves the hidden comment to cover paragraph 4, would that be fine under Remedy 5? Alternatively, could User B instead place new hidden comments covering paragraph 4 without adjusting the ones on paragraph 2 or 3 and be fine, if the first option is a violation? As far as I see, the only thing that cannot be done by a regular user is removing the hidden comment while moving it is fine. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by SilverLocust 💬 08:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	0	1	0		6
Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction	1	1	0		5

Notes

• At the moment, "userspace" (including user pages, user talk pages and subpages, "all of these pages") is (only) related content to the ARBPIA area as described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict § General sanctions upon related content. This leads to the following result, which is confusing to me:
  • WP:ARBPIA's extended-confirmed restriction does not apply to:
    • Edit requests in namespace 1 ("Talk"); RMs are not edit requests
    • Any edits in namespace 2 ("User") or 3 ("User talk").
  • All other contentious topics' extended-confirmed restriction does not apply to:
    • Edit requests in namespace 1 ("Talk"); RMs are not edit requests
  This should be changed in my opinion, and I am inclined to support the removal of the userspace exemption as edit requests should be sufficient to allow non-extended-confirmed editors to participate with minimal disruption in the area. The current state allows them to wait 30 days, make 500 purely ARBPIA-related edits to their sandbox and then move that to the mainspace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• I just wanted to note that I am aware of and am watching this discussion, but I would like to look more into the reasoning/history behind the current wording before commenting further. - Aoidh (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't see any contradiction between what WP:ECR says and what WP:CT/A-I describes; the CT page describes what is and is not under the ECR restriction in a way that is entirely compatible with the wording of ECR. ECR covers the area of conflict, and userspace is not in area of conflict. However it can be as "technically correct" as possible, but if it's confusing or seemingly incompatible to reasonable editors (which seems to be the case) then it's not doing it's purpose and needs to be rewritten or amended for clarity. If we're going to be imposing these atypical rules for this topic area then they need to be accessible and easily understood. - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Is this a real problem or an edge case? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• I think one issue with this is that the "primary articles" and "related content" distinction has proven to be less useful with time. When the case was first decided, the extended confirmed restriction had not been established. (In fact, the ARBPIA 500/30 restriction is what eventually led to the adoption of WP:ARBECR.) Now, WP:ARBECR points A, B, and C establish the proper enforcement actions to be taken, without need for any reference to "primary articles" and "related content" — a distinction that few if any other cases maintain. I would therefore support a motion defining the "area of conflict" to simply be "the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted", and making conforming edits to the rest of the case. (We can keep the templates, but the definitions of primary articles and related content will no longer be necessary in defining the scope of the restrictions.) Doing so would resolve this request and simplify the language going forward. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: I would assume the two terms should be viewed identically. Further thoughts forthcoming — currently discussing among ourselves. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Oppose

1. While this would solve the confusion brought by the wording, it also further erodes the ways in which an editor can edit, despite there being no compelling evidence in this discussion of intractable disruption warranting this change. - Aoidh (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

• I hope this matches L235's idea; I'm open to them changing the motion text if I missed something. It's a simple and clear solution, and simplifying confusing conditions that have actually caused confusion is good to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm worried this motion fails to resolve what happens to Remedies 6-8, which rely on the distinction between primary articles and related content. See below for one alternative. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per my reasoning above. - Aoidh (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

• Posting for discussion, per internal disucssion with ToBeFree. The issue with the previous motion is that Remedy 6-8 rely on the "primary articles" and "related content" distinction, and establish some special rules that are not found in the rest of the CTOP/ARBECR world. This motion would retain some of the guidance on the templates but broadly eliminate the formal differences in enforcement rules.
  One other option is to bring some of the rules from ARBPIA into the broader arbitration enforcement procedures. I think there is some merit in that idea — currently, all WP:CTOP says about scoping is one sentence (Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic.) and one footnote (This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.). If it would be useful to import some language from Remedy 6-8, that could be on the table. But there may not be much appetite for doing so, in which case we can just adopt the motion as drafted here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do like this motion as is already! Thanks for creating it; I hadn't noticed the need for adjusting the other remedies as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Aoidh: I would consider that if we want to exempt userspace from WP:ARBECR, the more appropriate way to do so would be by amending the text at WP:ARBECR. I think there's a strong interest in standardization, so I would rather have separate up-or-down votes on those two things, and then it would seem logical for you to support both of those motions. Curious for your thoughts. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• @L235: I would support amending WP:ARBECR to reflect WP:CT/A-I to avoid further confusion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think there's merit to the primary article distinction. This is a sprawling topic area; not on the scale of some contentious topics, but still broad. And there's a difference between the core set of articles that document the conflict and other articles that are not necessarily about the conflict but the related disputes spill over. Ideally, editors should be able to work on articles about the culture and history of the region without big scary ArbCom notices, at least until there are problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: I guess the question is whether it'd be worth codifying this distinction for the other CTOP areas as well. We can go in the other direction and borrow some of this language for use in the broader enforcement procedures — ARBPIA is not particularly unique in the sense of being a broad topic area. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)