For this motion there are 8 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Support

1. All that work and we managed to not vacate the original 1RR remedy. Facepalm Thank you to L235 for noticing. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply
2. Worm^TT( talk) 16:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply
3. Katie ^talk 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply
4. Would have been happy editing the case by show of hands, rather than a fresh motion: AGK  ■ 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC) reply
5. –  Joe ( talk) 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Abstain/Recuse

Arbitrator comments/discussion

Community discussion

For what it's worth AGK, if remedy 1 had said the existing remedies rather than the following existing remedies (emphasis added), I think that'd have been reasonable. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 18:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Initiated by Nableezy at 06:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Case or decision affected

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notification of El C

Statement by Nableezy

I'd like some clarification on the awareness requirements for the 1RR. My reading of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions is that the only thing that requires awareness are sanctions enacted under 5A (discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator), and that the 1RR is a general sanction that does not require formal awareness of the discretionary sanctions for the topic area and that users may be blocked for violating that sanction without any formal alert (obviously a request to self-revert being offered). Is that correct, or is formal notification of the discretionary sanctions required prior to any violation of the 1RR required?

Statement by El C

Statement by Zero0000

In the case of articles with an ARBPIA editnotice, that notice whacks you in the face as soon as you hit the "edit" button. So I wouldn't oppose a ruling that the existence of the notice implies awareness of the sanctions. Zero ^talk 07:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by TonyBallioni (ARBPIA)

I’ll ping Callanecc on this as he’s been helpful explaining this before, but traditionally the understanding was that the General Prohibition was not DS, but a direct sanction from ArbCom. As such, it did not require formal DS awareness. From a practicality perspective, yeah, this is helpful to not be DS. No one isn’t warned first, and most people in these areas know the rules and the formal notification doesn’t accomplish much. For 500/30 in particular, requiring the same requirements of DS could actively work against the sanction. We do have editors who intentionally search for pages not under ECP so they can edit them because they’re that passionate about the issue. Enforcing 500/30 with the page level requirements for DS would effectively make it protection-only, which would cause issues. Blocks for 500/30 aren’t that common, but we do need them as a tool, and the DS awareness criteria there would work against the intent of the sanction: to prevent new editors from causing disruption in this area, which is very difficult to define and preemptively protect. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by Callanecc

Feels strange commenting here! Exactly as Tony said, sanctions that ArbCom imposes directly (as in not by an admin under DS) operate with a separate system of rules. Unless the ArbCom decision requires that a warning be given before a sanction is imposed then a warning is ArbCom-mandated. However, a best practice approach would require that before being sanctions an editor knows what they're doing is wrong. If they're attempting to, for example, game the system as Tony suggests then they definitely know what they're doing is wrong and can be sanctioned without a formal warning having been given. Just regarding Zero0000's point above, it's important to consider that people editing using the mobile interface won't be shown the edit notice so that needs to be considered if using only that to determine whether the editor knows about the sanctions and so should be sanctioned or not. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by Piotrus

Just a short note that I read the first three arbcom member comments here and I am... very positively surprised. In my professional view as a sociologist who studied, among other things, ArbCom, English Wikipedia is way too into punitative blocks, with prevention being sidelined. To hear three members of ArbCom say otherwise, and do it very clearly, is very refreshing. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Neither the 500/30 restriction nor the 1RR restriction require a formal alert in order to be enforced. However, in my experience most editors who violate 1RR are warned and asked to revert before they receive a block, and that approach should continue to be encouraged. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and this policy extends even to arbitration enforcement blocks. – bradv 🍁 14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• What Bradv says. A notice/warning is not required, but we don't have be jerks about it. Having the authorization and ability to block without warning doesn't mean that blocking without warning is necessarily a good idea. Katie ^talk 14:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• I strongly agree with both of the above. As I've written before, we have become far too obsessed with procedural requirements and formalities. The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• I agree with the others, and I think we ned to amend arb com policy to make it more explicit. The primary purpose of arbcom is to settle disputes, not punish editors. Sometimes a person is so disruptive that a dispute can only be dealt with by removing them from the field, but do do this by discretionary sanctions is usually a very poor idea, because it is much too sticky. For arb com to sanction, a majority vote of a committee to do it; for an ordinary block, another admin can unblock, and if challenged it goes to AN and the the block needs to be reviewed by consensus ; but for DS a single admin can do it, and it is almost impossible to revert--the ds process is biased towards keeping the block. In other words, a single editor can do what arb com itself considers beyond its acceptable practice.

The absolute minimum is to greatly simply the rules for notice, which have been getting progressively complicated beyond what anyone can decipher.

But the basic reform is that the DS should be removed unless there is an affirmative consensus of uninvolved admins to retain it. (This is the opposite of present policy at WP:AC/DS section 9.2-- an appeal should succeed unless there is a clear consensus of uninvolved admins to sustain it). A further improvement could be made by limiting the time length of such sanction against individuals to 1 week at the very most, unless affirmatively endorsed by the community. A second improvement would be is restricting the types of individual DS to bans, topicbans, interaction bans, or page bans, with no special or usual requirements beyond the standard. A third would be limiting the number of times a single admin can do DS action agains an individual. (Similar restrictions might well apply to community blocks and bans, but arb com probably cannot legislate that on its own, except by accepting a willingness to review all bans and blocks, which is permitted by policy, but limited by our current practice, and is probably beyond our capability ). As is obvious here, the necessary changes will be complicated.

There is fortunately an easier way: all DS should be turned into ordinary restrictions, and DS never again enacted as a remedy. This is fuly within the power of arb com; it is our own internally invented procedure. They were originally done because there were unblockable editors--situations where some editors could not be blocked because their admin friends would immediately unblock; this is no longer a problem, as few such irresponsible admins remain. At present, the cure is worse than the disease, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• As one of the drafters of ARBPIA4, if I recall correctly our intention was that the template and edit notice was enough warning for the 1RR and 500/30 restrictions. Of course admins should us their judgement and not block people for good-faith mistakes, but at the same time, ARBPIA is probably the project's most contentious and abuse-prone topic area so a quick block to stop edit warring followed by an explanation might also be appropriate. With the "General Sanctions" we wanted something relatively simple and flexible and the last thing we want to do is recreate the byzantine nightmare that is the DS notification regime (per DGG). –  Joe ( talk) 14:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Initiated by Zero0000 at 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Case or decision affected

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

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

• Zero0000 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Zero0000

In accordance with the ARBPIA General Sanctions, non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages of ARBPIA articles under certain conditions. However, "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc.". My question is: Is a formal move proposal, as made using the {{requested move}} template, an example of "other internal project discussions"?

My opinion is that a move proposal is very similar to an RfC and so should be treated the same.

Thanks for your time. Zero ^talk 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

To editor Bradv: I think your interpretation of "content" is narrower than intended. The very fact that the rules for talk space editing, AfDs, etc, are called "exceptions" proves that "content" is intended to include them. I believe that "content" just means "all content" in the ordinary English sense and it isn't a specific reference to article space. Zero ^talk 04:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, there is nothing to stop non-ECs from discussing the topic of an on-going RfC on the talk page; they are only prohibited from taking part in the RfC itself. I believe this is important because of the number of new accounts or IPs that come out of nowhere just to "vote" in RfCs. I expect that a large fraction are socks, people editing while logged out, or people responding to off-wiki canvassing. Zero ^talk 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by selfstudier

The question came up here, I thought RM is not allowed and at first @ El C: thought it was OK and then decided it wasn't. Perhaps it should be made clear that it is not allowed (in practice, it is similar to an RFC). Selfstudier ( talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I see RMs as being very similar to RfCs in nature, so my feeling is that if RfCs are disallowed, RMs should be as well. The question of how to title an article is, after all, an "internal project discussion". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by Can I Log In

I've been following this clarification request since the beginning, and it seems like bradv pointed out interesting information that the 500/30 restriction applies to editing content only. So as worded, non-500/30 users may participate in "other internal project discussions".

Now let's look at WP:ARBPIA3, finding of fact No. 3

3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. ( Kingsindian's Evidence)

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that was from ~4.5 years ago, but when you consider this to be a long-term problem, it's likely that the problem persist.

So with this underlying fact and intention/principle, I think that the 500/30 restriction does apply to RM as well as other internal project or vote-like discussions in any ArbCom/community areas of conflict. Sockpuppetry is small, but when discovered, is huge. 01:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Narky Blert

There is a general legal principle that exceptions are to be construed narrowly. This is to provide legal certainty to people who might be affected. The topic in question is an exception to an exception, and the same principles apply.

I find the wording "such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." unclear. What are its boundaries? I suggest that "such as" be replaced by "including but not limited to".

In the case at hand, I consider that a WP:RM is of the same nature as the things already listed, and should be explicitly mentioned. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• My understanding of that clause is that "other internal discussions" refers to discussions that take place in locations other than the talk page of an article. Requested move discussions, as with other talk page discussions, can be managed by the methods listed in paragraph b, but only when disruption occurs. – bradv 🍁 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  GorillaWarfare, my understanding is that non-extended-confirmed editors are permitted to edit talk pages and other discussions, "provided they are not disruptive". They are only prohibited from editing the articles themselves. So they can contribute to RMs and RfCs, but if they are disruptive they can be banned from the talk page, but not from other internal discussions. – bradv 🍁 16:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  I suppose there's another interpretation of the General Sanctions that says that non-edit-confirmed editors are prohibited from participating in "other internal discussions". Perhaps someone can clarify the intent of the word "exception" in paragraph B-1, as I might be confused. – bradv 🍁 17:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  Follow up, having read this more carefully:

  ARBPIA General Sanctions, as currently worded, only applies the 500/30 prohibition to "editing content". There is an exception (extension?) to apply that rule to talk pages in the case of disruption, but that clause does not apply to "internal project discussions".

  As worded, this restriction does not prohibit new editors from participating in RMs, RfC, AfDs, or any other internal discussions, as they are not "editing content". If that was not the intent of the motion, it should be reworded. – bradv 🍁 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm a little split on this one, given that they are very similar to RfCs. As to Bradv's point about discussions happening away from the talk page, RfCs fairly often happen on the articles' talk pages and my understanding is that non-30/500 users are not allowed to participate then either (though please correct me if I'm wrong—my particular editing interests do not take me into the area of Palestine-Israel articles very often). GorillaWarfare  (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  I don't think I agree with Bradv's interpretation of "editing content"—I don't think "content" is meant to refer to "article content", but rather is just a vague term to refer to any editing. I agree with my other colleagues that RMs would seem to be prohibited, as are RfCs. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• I think the prohibition applies here, they're similar both to RfCCs, and AfDs; a title move in this area can be very consequential, and tend to be disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) . reply
• In the interests of a conservative reading to avoid disruption and the problems with the topic area, I'd agree that the prohibition would apply. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• I see where bradv is coming from and I agree that interpreting that exception it seems to be limited to discussions that are about more than just a single page even with the "RfCs" wedged in there. Moves can be controversial, yes, but so can changes in content. It makes no sense to say "You are allowed to argue for the change of everything but the name is off limits". Consequently, I would argue that the "RfCs" reverse-exception currently does not cover RfCs that are limited to the page in question and are held on the talk page because those RfCs do not fit the "internal discussions" definition (unlike AFDs, WikiProjects etc.). To take another example: WP:DAILYMAILRFC was an "internal discussion" because it was about whether to qualify a newspaper as a reliable source. The RfC held at Talk:Daily Mail/Archive 5#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits was not an "internal discussion" because it was only about what to include in this specific article. Regards So Why 08:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• To me a Requested Move is short hand for Request for Comment on a Move. Seems fairly obvious that the rules should be the same Worm^TT( talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• I can't see how an RM discussion isn't an "internal project discussion." If that's the only question here that would be my answer. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Uphold prohibition/ restrictions in this case. Seems just as contentious as warring over content. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Initiated by El C at 19:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Case or decision affected

WP:ARBPIA4, specifically pertaining to: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4_(June_2020)

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

• El C ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Shrike ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikieditor19920 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification to Shrike
• diff of notification to Wikieditor19920

Statement by El C

Following up on the query from Shrike (see conversation at: User talk:Shrike), I thought perhaps it would be prudent for the Committee to clarify whether logged warnings count as "sanctions being levied." I suspect what the answer to this is, but having it on the record is probably a good thing. As well, any elucidation Committee members can maybe provide on AWARE and topic area regulars, even if only in passing, would be welcome (sorry for the two-questions-in-one!). El_C 19:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

As an add-on, I'd like to note that I realize that AWARE says, in part, Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions, but, even if we were to take that excerpt out of whatever context, the distinction between logged and un-logged warnings isn't specified, anywhere that I've seen (possibly, I just missed it?). El_C 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

More pointedly about topic area regulars and the 12-month alert updates: say a topic area regular gets sanctioned (sanction sanction), but the sanctioning admin fails to notice that the alert update has lapsed by something like a month (or even two) — is the expectation then for the sanctions to therefore be rescinded? El_C 19:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Okay, some of the things Kevin had said below align with what I thought and some less so, so now I don't really feel too bad for wasting the Committee's time with this. Regardless, there seems to be grey areas that could be tweaked so as to be better expressly defined. Whether this or that gets adjusted via Motion immediately, or is to be left for wider DS reform, that I obviously leave to the Committee's discretion and can offer no serious advise on. It's mostly all the same to me though, anyway. (Sorry, will try to tone down the usual indentyness — let's see if I can live up to that promise!) El_C 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Kevin, right, that seems intuitive, as a general principle. But, in this case, the DS alert update was short by 10 days — also tying that to what Newyorkbrad says (i.e. "self-parody"). El_C 05:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Kevin, no doubt — I'm often seen as WP:BURO-ing it up when it comes to being a stickler about the procedures of DS rules (though admittedly, with some lapses, here and there). I'll just note that, in this case, I did do the calculation in my head and was, like, it's about right, not gonna bother them with another DS alert quite yet — but I suppose I'll consult a calendar next time (because math = hard!). Anyway, definitely, sounds good. Looking forward to seeing what y'all come up with by way of DS reform (long overdue). El_C 15:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Shrike

• I want to thank to El_C for bringing this up. In my opinion the logged warning is set of tools given by administrators as part of discretionary sanctions. So a user can receive one only if he aware there are sanctions in the area.
• If we say that experienced editors may receive such warning/sanction without meeting WP:AWARE requirement so what the point of "In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or"? -- Shrike ( talk) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ L235: I think it was not the question if the logged warning counts as awareness. As far as I understand the question can a logged warning be given without meeting WP:AWARE criteria? Shrike ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Wikieditor19920

Statement by Selfstudier

Not really au fait with the nitty gritty but I don't think anyone needs to see that notice more than once or even at all, especially when you have those in-your-face notices at the articles themselves. Regulars know the score and newcomers are given an easier treatment. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Guerillero

We have IAR for a good reason and overturning a logged warning because someone was out of awareness by 10 days seems to be a good example of where the rules are completely disconnected from reality -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

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

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Let me first say this: we know the awareness procedures are broken. They exist to avoid wikilawyering, but now there's almost a body of awareness law. My perspective is that a logged warning should count as awareness (many more things should count as awareness), but they perhaps don't currently. This is because under the procedures, warnings are not considered sanctions. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Dismissing an enforcement request says: When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches. Warnings are therefore imposed when "the imposition of a sanction" is found to be "inappropriate" (or when "no actual violation occurred"). This suggests that warnings are not sanctions, and so currently do not count under the second point of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Awareness. I think it'd be reasonable to amend it to allow warnings to count as sanctions, but I'd prefer to do a broader DS reform first. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I see. I'd be pretty uncomfortable logging a warning at AE against a user who could not be sanctioned at AE, and I would discourage the practice of doing so. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Count me as a vote for no: it is inappropriate to log at the arbitration enforcement log a warning against a user for edits that they made when they were not technically aware of discretionary sanctions. Nothing precludes an unlogged warning, of course, but nothing should go in the AELOG for an unaware user. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ El C: I hear what you're saying and I agree with it insofar as it's an argument to change the way awareness works (which I want to do too). But it's not a good interpretation of awareness as it exists now. Arbitration enforcement and particularly DS constitutes a delegation of extraordinary powers by this committee to administrators, and IAR does not generally apply (or, if it does, it applies to mitigate the actions that might be taken – ambiguity in our delegation of powers should be resolved in favor of a narrower delegation of powers). It definitely doesn't allow "just 10 days off", or "just a warning", or even "it was just 10 days off and it was just a warning" as a justification to take action outside of the procedure's scope, as ridiculous as the outcome might be. The good news is that a logged warning is functionally identical to an unlogged warning. But absolutely, please save your comments here and bring them up in the DS reform consultations – it will certainly be useful. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• I'm pretty reluctant to weigh in on an AWARENESS issue given that will be a major focus of DS reform. Quite simply AWARENESS is broken. I know I keep talking about it but I do think it will happen. I should note that quite truthfully I have no intent of leading this particular effort. However, I know some of my colleagues, including the one who posted here, are quite motivated by this topic and so I expect something will happen this year (and hopefully start to happen, if only internally at first, soon. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• DS reform is coming up soon on our docket. Fixing how awareness works will be a major part of it. Awareness was originally meant as a check and balance, so that unsuspecting editors didn't suddenly find themselves blocked under byzantine rules they didn't know. That was a noble goal, and we still need some kind of way to let new users know about the rules. But now awareness is used as a sort of cudgel, a get of jail free card, an excuse to wikilawyer.

This particular issue? Well, again, this will probably get reformed. But at the moment, I am of a mind that a warning is not a sanction. What does a warning really do? Not much. It has no actual effect on your editing. Its meant only as a "knock it off kid or you'll go see the principal". Now, I don't think we should just start handing out warnings in place of awareness. But for egregious cases, I think it can make sense to skip the awareness, especially if they're already aware of other DS or clearly know about the functioning of ArbCom. I think the rules here should be flexible, as the harder our rules, the stronger the Wikilawyers, and the bigger the bureacracy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• About twelve years ago, I made an innocent-seeming comment that we shouldn't sanction editors for violating newly imposed discretionary-sanctions rules if they didn't know that the rules existed. As Kevin observes, this common-sense suggestion has developed into a "body of awareness law" that verges on self-parody, and I oppose adding any further complexity to it. The basic precept remains what it has always been, which is that if an editor might not be aware of the rule they violated, give them the benefit of the doubt and explain the rule, and see if there's another violation before moving ahead with a sanction. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Case or decision affected

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

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

• Benevolent human ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Firefangledfeathers ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [2]

Statement by Benevolent human

Should ARBPIA apply to allegations of whether Ilhan Omar invoked anti-Semitic canards when discussing Jewish Americans? The controversy stems from Ilhan Omar allegedly saying that Jewish Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. My view was: Dual loyalty implies people are doing nice things for Israel since they're loyal to Israel, but the US has, in part due to AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, collaboration on Iran issues, favorable trade arrangements, technology development, etc. My sense for the other view is that the Israeli-Arab conflict tends to also be mentioned tangentially in some but not all articles that discuss this incident, but articles often provide digressions and context aside from discussing the primary manner of hand. Here is a representative article: [3]

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

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

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

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

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

Response to NightHeron: [4]

Response to Barkeep49: We tried discussing but couldn't come to a consensus: Talk:Ilhan_Omar#Above_RfC_and_ARBPIA. Then I tried to open an RfC, but other editors closed it and told me I had to come here: [5] Benevolent human ( talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

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

Statement by Nishidani

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

Statement by Muboshgu

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

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

Statement by The Four Deuces

Benevolent human, formerly User:Pretzel butterfly, has created three unsuccessful RfCs about inclusion of accusations of anti-Semitism against Ilhan Omar since June 1 2021: Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC on anti-Semitism accusations in lead [20:21, 1 June 2021] [6], Talk:Ilhan Omar#New information [02:25, 12 June 2021] [7] and Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC [21:22, 12 June 2021]. [8] At last count the vote for the third RfC, which is still open, stands at 17-3 against.

Benevolent human previously tried to include accusations of anti-Semitism against Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#AOC's disputes with Jewish groups [18:33, 18 December 2020] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#RfC about AOC's disputes with Jewish organizations [22:29, 6 January 2021] and Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 8#AOC and Israel. [14:32, 17 April 2021] After failing in the RfC, Pretzel Butterfly reinserted the disputed text. See Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1#Yet again [00:52, 11 January 2021]. Omar and AOC are close allies in the U.S. Congress.

This editor is clearly disruptive, arguing their views long after it was clear they had no support. I recommend a topic ban for U.S. politics. Under their previous account, I informed the editor of American politics AE [22:43, 10 January 2021]. [9] (While I used the previous date of 1932 - it's now 1992 - I think the notice was valid.)

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

Barkeep49, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution covers content disputes, but the issue here was whether the 500/30 Rule, prohibiting new editors from editing Palestine-Israel articles, applied, which is not a content issue. TFD ( talk) 19:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Jackattack1597

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

Statement by NightHeron

It shouldn't be necessary for ArbCom to clarify what's already completely clear to everyone except for one user. Talk:Ilhan Omar prominently displays a detailed warning that certain parts of the article are subject to ARBPIA. This obviously means the parts dealing with controversies over Omar's statements on US support for Israel in the Palestine-Israel conflict. Several editors explained to Bh the applicability of ARBPIA, see [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17], but Bh insists that all of us are wrong. The real issue seems to be Bh's WP:IDHT. NightHeron ( talk) 19:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Black Kite

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

Statement by RandomCanadian

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

Statement by JayBeeEll

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

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments [here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

• Amend the section, replacing RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. with RfCs, requested moves, noticeboard discussions, etc.

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

In several ARBPIA RMs, most recently at Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and Talk:Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, many non-500/30 editors have commented in RMs, unaware that the restriction applies to those discussions. ArbCom seemed to clarify (by majority, although not without dissent) in this ARCA that RMs are included in that provision, but didn't amend the actual remedy with their clarification. It's not particularly convenient for editors to have to link to and explain Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Amendment_(December_2019) (an ARCA archive) every time a comment is struck and a non-500/30 user is confused by, or objects to, the striking. Requesting that the section be amended, as it was in this amendment, so that it's clearer for users, and so that Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement can be amended with the new wording as well.

I think it would also help if Template:Requested move/dated was amended to include a reminder of the restriction on ARBPIA4 pages. (edit: I've cooked up something for this part at Template_talk:Requested_move#Automatic_notice_of_restrictions_on_ARBPIA_pages)

@ Barkeep49: The editors would still have to read through the ARCA just to pick out the addition of two words. Very few people should have to read the ARCAs at all; in that ARCA it probably would've been better to have formally passed a motion to amend with the changes, similar to what is proposed here. That way the result is preserved for easy access, and the templates can also be updated. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Statement by selfstudier

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

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

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

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

Statement by Shrike

What is the difference between RFC and RM. Though both process are not decided by majority but by strength of arguments still if there are many proponents of certain view ussally it will be decided accordingly. The provision meant to disallow socks to influence on such process so there is no logic to allow it in AFD but not in RFC which both happen on talk page -- Shrike ( talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

To the opposers then please make a motion to allow AFD explicitly (though I still don' see any logic in allowing RFC but not AFD) Shrike ( talk) 15:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

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

Statement by 182.1.15.37

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

Statement by RandomCanadian

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

Statement by ZScarpia

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

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

b. edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

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

    ←   ZScarpia   14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by {other-editor}

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not opposed to what's being proposed by why not create a wiki-shortcut to make it easier to link to editors when needing to explain? More broadly I think this should be part of an effort to better memorialize ARCAs on case pages which I know is something that has had some arb/clerk discussion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  PR: I disagree with the idea that, short of a formal motion, ArbCom cannot offer guidance. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  I agree that we aren't required to offer guidance via motion, but I also believe it can be prudent to choose a motion over simple statements at ARCA, especially when an issue is likely to recur and may be confusing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  What are the advantages of changing the motion as opposed to just linking people to the footnote? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Barkeep49: I'm glad that footnote exists. I completely forgot about it, which says something about how hard it is to find because I wrote that footnote when I was a clerk. Anyway, I still prefer the explicit clarification in the motion but am happy to decline the amendment request. See #Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

  In the interests of not having this sit for months, are people generally inclined to want to pass a motion, in which case it would make sense to put effort towards finding one that has support, or are people inclined to want to close this request in some other way (my preference)? Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• I'm not convinced it would actually have the desired affect, but I don't really see a downside either, so my feeling at this time is to support this change. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support per Beeblebrox. I share his skepticism—might it make sense to have a tweaked notice specifically for RMs and similar discussions? I can quite easily imagine a newer editor skimming the notice and assuming it only applies in article space. -- BDD ( talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• I have not seen anything so far to change my mind from the last discussion. Why should non-EC editors be allowed to discuss everything but the title of the article? That makes no sense. I can agree with clearly internal discussions as currently worded but move discussions are clearly content discussions and should imho be governed by the same rules as any other editing of the article. Regards So Why 18:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  I feel like re-litigating the 2019 amendment is a different discussion than the one we're having. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  The 2019 amendment explicitly has an exception that allows non-EC editors to "use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area". I just think that comments and edit requests related to articles includes the title of the article because the exception does not talk about "the body of the article" or anything like that. So it's not a question of re-litigating but of interpreting that amendment. My interpretation is that unless this has explicitly been excluded (which it hasn't), article names are part of the exception that non-EC editors have. The request here is to add requested move discussions to the remedy, which would imho constitute a change and not just a clarification. Regards So Why 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  On the other hand, why should non-EC editors be able to comment in RMs but not RfCs? Do we have any idea whether the arbs at the time considered RMs to be part of the "etc."? -- BDD ( talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• I'm still leaning towards opposition, but I do have a question: why are we even debating this? The motion below reads as more of a clarification (which seems unnecessary and potentially convoluted) instead of any sort of "overturning" or "rewriting" of the existing language, but if the last time this was looked at RMs were considered "internal processes" and thus included in the exceptions (to the exceptions) we're just wasting our time. Primefac ( talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. Proposed. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

   In response to oppose#1: The permission to edit talk pages is an exception to a general rule prohibiting editing anything related to PIA (content or non-content). That's why it's given as one of the "sole exceptions". As currently written, if you really read "content" as "mainspace content", then non-EC editors already have permission to edit talk pages, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc., even without the exception, because they're only prohibited from editing mainspace content. That's clearly not the intent, and that's why the first bullet point is a useful change and in line with how we already apply this remedy. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

2. I don't really understand the opposes. However we sort out the details, the remedy amounts to a general rule plus some enumerated exceptions. The only substantial change is clarifying that RMs are not among the exceptions—and arguably, that's not a substantial change, given the December 2019 ARCA. -- BDD ( talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

   It seems unlikely to come up, but clerks, please consider this my second choice now. -- BDD ( talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. The first change makes no sense, since there is an exception that does allow editing within the area of conflict, i.e. by posting on the talk pages. So changing it from "editing content" to "editing" is kind of misleading. As for the second change, I have already indicated that I do not think adding requested move discussions to be a clarification but a change of the nature of the remedy and I do oppose it. Closing editors might take into account that an account is not-EC when judging the outcome of a RM discussion but like all other discussions of an article's content, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with allowing these editors to make constructive comments in such a discussion. The third change is okay but imho not necessary. Regards So Why 10:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
2. I generally agree with SoWhy, particularly on the first point. I'm not entirely convinced of the logic behind banning non-ECP users from the articles but not the talkpages, but that perhaps may be a discussion for another time. Maxim_(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply

   I find myself in opposition to this motion mostly because it would set up a contradictory set of instructions. The first part of 5.b.1 is Editors who are not eligible ... may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. (emphasis added). Later it is clarified that This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions..., which to me means anything not on the talk page (e.g. WP-space, primarily). An RM is a form of edit request (though one that requires consensus) that falls within the first part of 5.b.1 and not in the second. Primefac ( talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Shifted to abstain. Primefac ( talk) 17:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply

3. This is a silly technicality. "Internal project discussions" already means RMs. Wikipedia generally avoids the sort of enumerated lists because as we all know, lists are inherently incomplete. Thus we write a general principle. With regards to removing "content", it just feels like semantics to me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Abstain

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

Discussion

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

• Per my previous comments on this topic, can we also change the word "content" in paragraph B to "pages"? – bradv 🍁 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Bradv: How about we make these changes? "All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict." and "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." The term "related content" is defined in Remedy 4 as including "all namespaces with the exception of userspace", but "content" itself is not. (sigh) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I've made this change to the draft motion. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• I have now proposed the motion for voting. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• @ Primefac: especially, but also a general comment: I think the "contradictory set of instructions" ship has sailed. RfCs are explicitly not an exception—so is an RfC on the talk page a trap for non-EC editors? I'd much prefer straightforward guidelines. Maybe that means something like declaring all talk page discussions fair game. -- BDD ( talk) 15:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  If we were to clarify anything, I think it should be RfCs not on a specific Talk: page are verboten, because as stated my interpretation of "other internal project discussions" means pages not in that namespace. Whether intentional or not, we shouldn't have rules so complex that on a single page #X discussion okay but #Y is not. Primefac ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• The original motion is too confusing, and this amendment probably doesn't do enough to fix it. The undefined terms such as "content" are problematic, as is the nested exception in paragraph B. If we can agree on what it was trying to say in the first place, perhaps we can find a better way to phrase it. – bradv 🍁 00:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• A somewhat rambling clarification of my vote follows. We're really nitpicking here when I think we should examine the broader "why". The reason we don't allow non-ECP in internal project areas is because we tend to get new to moderately new accounts that are here to POV push and disrupt. We've all been in discussions where a handful of users can cause a great deal of disruption. Especially something like an RM is going to be controversial, and thus on the principle, RM's, as an internal project discussion, should be ECP only. I oppose the wording as written because I think it adds needless bureaucracy. I fear that the longer ArbCom exists, the more folks will want our rulings to read like laws, with increasingly long enumerations, jargon, legalese, and ultra-precise wording. I think that is not useful for the somewhat loosey-goosey style of Wikipedia, and saps energy and independence from our hardworking AE admins. So bottom line: RM's are internal project discussions, but we shouldn't need to have to say that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 4 (2)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Trying a different tact here: I think we lack a consensus on whether RM's are in fact part of the 500/30 restrictions, so this is in the interest of seeing where we stand solely on RM's. Baby's first motion so go ahead and tweak it if necessary :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
2. Support as status quo, as established in the July 2020 ARCA. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
3. Support as first choice. This provides clarity without getting into side issues like the definition of "content". Thanks, Eek! -- BDD ( talk) 20:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC) reply
4. As I said last time - Requested Move is shorthand for "Request for Comment about a Move". This motion explicitly clarifies that, which I thought we'd already clarified. Worm^TT( talk) 08:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
5. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
6. Worm That Turned makes a fair point. Maxim_(talk) 14:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
7. Primefac ( talk) 13:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose per above. I still think the name of an article falls under "content", not "internal project related stuff". Regards So Why 16:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Abstain

Discussion

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

Straw poll: Closing the amendment request without action

This amendment request is closed without action.

Support

1. Proposing this in the interest of not letting this ARCA sit here for months. If the status quo (the July 2020 clarification not in the text of the remedy but listed in the index footnote) is acceptable, then let's close this. If not, and the current motion isn't good, I would recommend proposing a different motion. Clerks: this isn't a formal motion and shouldn't be formally "enacted" if it hits a majority; it's just here to signal if arbs support closing this. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply
2. Barkeep49 ( talk) 10:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply
3. Maxim_(talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
4. So Why 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply
5. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose

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

Enacted - SQL ^{Query Me!} 10:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Arbitrators views and discussion

Support

1. Proposed. Based on the long-running ARCA on the same topic, but proposing here to comply with the rule on changing the Committee's procedures. This motion incorporates the draft from the ARCA and also updates the two current remedies to use the standard language. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

   Also, if this motion passes, the clerks should close the present ARCA. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

2. Per all my work and reasoning at the ARCA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 02:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
3. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
4. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply
5. BDD ( talk) 15:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply
6. As a thought on NYB's comment, if I am interpreting this motion correctly, this new restriction will be part of our toolkit for case remedies, much like Discretionary Sanctions, and standardises past uses in an effort to cut down on slightly-different rules being used for different cases. If anything I feel this reduces the complexity for future use, though I do feel that it should be limited to cases where it is necessary (i.e. still voted on by Remedy motion in a case). Primefac ( talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
7. I think this does a good job of clarifying the protection which we seem to be using (or at least considering) more often, without unnecessary bureaucracy. I take NYB's point below, but some Arbcom bureaucracy is a necessary evil of forcing a "final" step in dispute resolution. Worm^TT( talk) 16:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply
8. This is a much-needed clarification on the previous wording. However, I take NYB's comments below seriously and hope we can, over time, reduce our dependence on complicated procedures like this. – bradv ^🍁 14:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Abstain

1. The motion is a thoughtful product of the weeks-long ARCA discussion and I expect that we can live with it. However, seven years ago I was impressed by this article, by a highly respected author, as I wrote at the time. The project has done nothing to solve the massive instruction-creep problem that the article describes, and upon realizing that fact, I cannot bring myself to endorse yet another complicated set of rules and procedures. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Discussion by arbitrators

• Thanks TonyBallioni. Just added the sentence to the remedy 7: Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. @ CaptainEek and Casliber: Hope this is fine! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

No problem Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 07:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• I recall a recent discussion somewhere about whether page moves are considered edits. Would it be worth clarifying that in this motion? – bradv ^🍁 03:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  I think you're referring to this discussion? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  I don't think it was that one – it was a hypothetical question about whether a non-EC editor was permitted to move a page within the topic area, as this restriction forbids "edits" but not "actions". It's probably a minor point, as such activity is likely going to be reverted with or without this restriction, and most pages subject to this restriction would have move-protection enabled anyway. I believe I have now answered my own question. – bradv ^🍁 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Community discussion

• User:L235, minor quibble on the wording here, but for the Antisemitism in Poland case, it is likely worth keeping the bullet point that reinforces ARBEE DS are in place. While the various "sides" of that dispute have been generally speaking pro-EC protection, there's stuff that's borderline and giving admins the discretion to apply EC via DS without having to worry about wikilawyering is probably useful. They'd still have the authority anyway, but I don't see any harm in keeping the bullet point clarifying it in the actual remedy, and I could see some theoretical benefit to it in the future. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, Kevin. Looks good to me. TonyBallioni ( talk) 07:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Extended-confirmed protection currently technically can not be implemented at any talk pages. I was not able to find after five minutes in which namespaces it can be implemented now (I guess one just needs to try all of them), but I suspect there is only limited set of namespaces where it works (main, template, file, wikipedia?). If this is the case, it would be good to reflect in the motion for example listing these namepaces in B.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Ymblanter: where are you getting this information? Special:Redirect/logid/121439129 suggests otherwise. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  As does this list which I should have just gone to first. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  I see. I probably confused it with pending changes, but it is irrelevant. This makes my point void.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Just to make it clear: In the way D is currently formulated, any user can revert any non-ecp user from a talk page they decide is broasdly related to one of these special areas claiming they enforce ecp? is this the intention of the committee?-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  No, in my view, the motion is pretty explicit that this is not the case. Non-ECP users "may use the 'Talk:' namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". If the non-ECP user is disruptive, "administrators may take enforcement actions" (not "any user"). If a user reverts a non-ECP user who is just editing on the talk page, that revert would not be "made solely to enforce this restriction" and therefore clause D would have no relevance. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  For reference, this language is already part of the existing remedies. Remedy 7 of Antisemitism in Poland says: Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring. Remedy 5 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 says: Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring. This motion is just housekeeping. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  I just remember the whole episode started from a non-administrator reverting a non-ec user claiming they are enforcing the sanction. Well. let us hope this language could work out.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• There are occasional, exceptional, reasons we may grant the ECP flag to editors that do not automatically qualify. If doing so it comes with a warning not to edit pages under remedy for 500/30 restrictions. It is also possible that the community may change the 500/30 threshold for ECP autogrant in the future. Keeping this in mind, beware that this could have unintended impact on past remedies. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• This is just a non-substantive copyediting suggestion. In A2, the phrase "non-extended-confirmed" appears twice, and sounds a little bit "off". I suggest changing it to "non-extended-confirmed users" or "... editors". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, fixed the typo. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• In the interest of reducing red tape and overlapping sanctions regimes, would ArbCom consider taking over the existing WP:GS/IPAK community-imposed 500/300 rule and incorporating it as a 'standard extended confirmed restriction' into the WP:ARBIP case? I suggest this because, with standardisation occurring, it will be confusing if the IPAK restriction is left isolated with its own separate rules based on previous interpretations of how this type of sanctions regime should work. Future community-imposed extended-confirmed restrictions will most likely follow the new ArbCom regime, negating the problem, but in this case, there is already an ArbCom regime active in the topic area and standardisation is certainly desirable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ RGloucester, that looks to me like a reasonable request. I would suggest bringing it up at ARCA once this amendment passes. – bradv ^🍁 17:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply